Talk:James VI and I/Archive 4

He was King of Scotland and England not just England
He was king of scotland and england but lets just ignore the scotland part, as it is offensive to the superiority complex of the imperialistic english people that they were ran by a scotman, and hey england is bigger, so lets ignore real history and make up a new history eh, to pander to the arrogance of the english "never been beaten" myth. Great logic. This is just silly arrogant english game of claming they have never been defeated and never lost, never been occupied. No doubt we will have some idiot claing William the conqueror was really from Milton Keynes, Ceasar was from Barnet, and King Canute was from Birmingham, and that William was not a foreign norman baron who conquered the entire nation of england. oooo that hurts doesn't it. No dount we will have someone claiming James was really an english man. LOL How pathetic. So we have to claim his offical title was just king of england, to conn people abroad into thinking scotland was part of england. That simply was not the case whether you like or not. Scotland was independent had it's own parliament and the fact is the king of england was a scot. So even though he was king of scotlandd first, we have to ingore that in his title, How patheitc. This is same types who think english people are ehtnically german when they are not. That english people are somehting special greater than other people. Racist idiots, with qa superiority complex. Arrogant drivel. It would be perfeclty reasonable to have his long title that he was king of scotland and england, but to allow redirects from the indivdual titles he held, but hey that would giving into those scots eh we canot have that Ooooooo nooooo imagine a haiving to admitt the great unebalt e nation of england has often been run by non english men. Utterlyl pathsetic you englishy need to grow up. I am not racist against all english people but this is just arrogant drivel. MESSAGE TO ENGLAND NATIONALISTS HE WAS KING OF SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND NOT JUST ENGLAND, AND THAT WAS A VITAL PART OF WHO HE WAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereisthis (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

== While distancing myself from the strident strange tone of the person above, can I also put forward that James VI should not redirected to James I of England. He was first and foremost James VI of Scotland and later became known as James VI and I. Would it be possible (with the editors' permission) to change this to James VI and I of Scotland and England (or something more neat and in keeping with Wiki-style?  This is quite important as it appears either very anglo-centric or just anti-scottish.


 * I completely agree with both of the above comments (although not the antagonistic attitude of the first). I actually created an account today because I was so offended that my search for James VI redirected me to James I of England. He was a Scottish monarch first who then became King of England AS WELL as of Scotland. 1603 Union of the Crowns. Call me picky, I fully admit I am, but I have an MA in Scottish History and things like this really really upset me. Feel free to blame it on the Scottish nationalism inherent in the Scottish education system :) Strattera (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with the above (albeit the obvious). It's like looking up "Hermann Jónasson" and finding, not "Hermann Jónasson, Prime minister of Iceland", but "Hermann Jónasson, Prime minister the Danish State of Iceland." (I dare you to describe Iceland as a danish state to an icelander :) Although for legal reasons, I'm not. I don't want to be responsible for any hospital bills or compensation <3 ) 77.97.211.44 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above statements. I am English and I believe it completely wrong to refer to James as "James I of England".  he was first and foremost a King of Scots, who later became King of England!  It is utterly stupid for this page to redirect to James I of England.  Either allow it to direct to James VI of Scotland or some kind of joint title like James VI of Scotland and I of England.  Furthermore he was King of Ireland.  He did eventually style himself King of Great Britain, which may help act as a middle ground perhaps.SKC (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Concurred. It's like referring to Elizabeth Windsor as Queen Elizabeth I of Australia instead of Queen Elizabeth I of Britain, or Elizabeth II of England. Hanii (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the persons you named exists. Elizabeth Windsor doesn't exist, Elizabeth I of Australia doesn't exist, Elizabeth I of Britain doesn't exist and Elizabeth II of England doesn't exist. The woman you refer to doesn't have a surname; there has never been a kingdom of Britain, so there has never been any queen of Britain; the Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707, two centuries before Elizabeth II was even born, so she couldn't have been queen of England. It is correct to refer to her as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Elizabeth II of Australia or Elizabeth II of AnyCommonwealthRealm. Surtsicna (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, Surt', the Kingdom of Great Britain did, in fact, exist from the Union of the Parliaments unitl G III's Act of Union 1801 -- of course I acknowledge that you omit great, which means you might not even be referring to this! If you aren't, my apologies in advance. However, I've seen authors use both the Kingdom of Britain and Kingdom of Great-Britain. Yours, -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said that the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist. The Kingdom of Britain didn't exist. As the Kingdom of Britain didn't exist, there were never kings/queens of Britain. That was my point. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, Jack. Anyway, we're off topic. Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In a purely political context - as royalty doesn't have anything to do with geography - Great Britain, Britain, and the United Kingdom refer to exactly the same entity. I could just as easily get up your arse for calling her Queen of the United Kingdom when "United Kingdom" could technically refer to any of the united kingdoms through history (The United Kingdom of the Netherlands, The United Kingdom of Israel and Judah, The United Kingdom of Libya, etc.), and it would be more correct to refer to her as the Queen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ... or are you suggesting that she just might be 3 millennia old? :) I suggest you stop being pedantic and take what I said for what it obviously meant, and what you can tell what it meant, rather picking fights over irrelevant semantics. (Before you suggest that that's what this discussion is about, it's not, it's about historical and nationalistic attribution of the 6th King James of Scotland) Hanii (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:LGBT royalty
Can we leave this category off until the above discussion is resolved? I would rather not have this included unless its definitive, if thats possible. Anyways, thanks, --Tom (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess not. I will step out and not revert. Good luck. --Tom (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See previous discussions regarding people messing about with the categories. Artw (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't feel you have to "step out". Since I hadn't seen any contributions from you to the article, and no explanation in the edit summary or here, I reverted. Can you clarify why you would "rather not have this included"?  My reason for wanting to keep it is that, by modern definitions, James would be considered bi- or gay.  People looking through the category structure would expect to see him there.  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  21:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi SatyrTN, no problem. I would rather not have it included unless it is determined that this person belongs in that category. It seems that there was an ongoing dispute as to the wording/sourcing of his sexual encounters/history whatever you want to call it. I am NO expert on this guy so I will defer to others. Again, I am more into NOT including categories unless they are 100% locked down, otherwise it seems to water them down. Anyways, no biggie either way and thanks for the reply. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with categories at all. But if we are going to have them, then I see nothing wrong with this one. Historians either consider James to have been homosexual or are prepared to debate the point. Those that ignore the issue use terms such as "intimate male friendships" that do not contradict the category. It seems to me that an article in this category has to discuss the issue, which this one does. The category does not define James as being gay but the article as addressing the issue. qp10qp (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just curious but how would James I (also an intolerant religious man) fall into the modern bi- or gay subculture? Because of rumors about him? Because he had court members in his room? I am an advocate of removing the category until it is proven 100%. Canutethegreat (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a neverending quest by a certain Wikiproject to include famous members into their persuasion, claiming systemic bias and cover up, real enough to all non-homophobes, which is basically a blatant character assassination of anyone who informs them of the errors in scholastic zealotry, or the proper way to write an article in focus. I do not believe that anybody, on either side of this discussion, going on the facts in what is known, rather than speculated on, would say that James favored the Wikiproject's take on WP:NPOV, WP:TEND, WP:POINT, WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL.  According to James's own personal beliefs, this would be an attack on his integrity and character, which is exactly what his opponents had in mind during the English Civil War (and what Basilikon Doron was supposed to counter, although those who refuse to accept the Wikiproject's take on this aren't even trying to defend that work, or "heterocentric-establishment-hostility").  Actually, I believe it was right to kick the Scottish dynasty out and for much more realistic reasons than calling the Auld Enemy a "fag" or "gay".  Parliament was finally trying to live up to Henry VIII's will that the line of Margaret Tudor would not succeed to the Crown and any slight or hurt to the Stuarts' reputation was fair game in their Machiavellian minds.  Parliament initially allowed him, because it was thought to appease the rebels against the English government.  What ended up happening, was a complete allowance of degradation to the state by permissiveness (which was natural in Scotland, but not England--the later Act of Toleration was another example of something the English would not stand for).  One could easily conjure up homosexuality as one among numerous vices the Stuart court might be guilty of, but the most pressing concern was extortion to pay off continual favors to close friends (and lord it over the commons, secure in enclosed, palatial estates, while the old aristocracy was forced into beggary, the peasants into hardened criminals).  This pissed off most people in the country, who refused to pay "ship money" because of the Crown's fiscal irresponsibility, with the Throne in the hands of traditional enemies who had fought against the English in the Hundred Years' War (RE: Duke of Lennox, Duke of Aubigny).


 * In no contemporary source, is this anything other than considered caricatured, foppish emasculation on the part of the Cavaliers. The King in retrospect, was ridiculed to have "no balls", but was an effeminate windbag (an egocentric and pedantic intellectual) who dressed in a bodysuit of armor at all times and surrounded himself with men who live out policies for him [sort of like the boy king Edward VI], in his fright preventing him from being more bold and a womanizing quasi-philanderer like Henry VIII, whom most men thought of in closest memory of a ruling king of England.  These usually tongue-in-cheek, campy accusations came initially from his heir Charles I's English enemies after the marriage to the French Henrietta Maria, being that Charles was Scottish and perpetuating the Auld Alliance as a means to control his Auld Enemies the English, although technically their Sovereign and not supposed to persecute or misuse their gift of the Crown to make the English kneel, with capricious vengeance for all the times the Scots had been beaten into submission.  To be entirely fair, James lived in fear of assassination from almost all quarters, whether from the Scots, English, or possibly the Spaniards (whom his appeasement of incited disgust by bigoted nativists in the vein of Drake and Raleigh, the old Courtenay-Elizabeth faction).  James in his activities, tread a very fine line and fought no wars.  He tried to make up for it in bombast, but his approach could be seen by the English as unnaturally condescending; especially since the king didn't manhandle his subjects the way Henry VIII did, many thought of him as "chickenshit".  He "talked the talk", but did not "walk the walk".


 * Hence, the archaic stereotype of effeminancy is conflated and immensely distorted (RE: 400 years) with fantastical Bacchanalian orgies in the palace by those modern readers who have forgotten what "being a sissy" means from kindergarten (certainly not equivalent to a transsexual operation [bodily mutilation for hire; professionally endorsed S-M against the Hippocratic Oath no less] to pretend one is not how they were created?). It might be well to consider WP:AGF that a certain Wikiproject, like any other interested party in that belief, has not really noted this wide assortment of things, but then again, there are indeed some editors whom I will not reveal (at the cost of my persecution, which will come regardless for speaking the obvious), that are actually seizing upon the misunderstanding to try and vilify or defame James (and those seemingly insensitive enablers, like the above innocents whose patience has resulted in caving into the abuse dealt them, untrue things for the sake of backing out of the corner they've been pushed into) for things done according to his actual stance (against their personal interests or motives), such that condemnation of sodomy (e.g. Bacchanalian orgy), would be turned into hypocrisy.  This attitude is consistent with Holocaust denial and revisionism to serve ideologues or demagogues, many of whom persist in the hostile barrages of preaching hate for what most take to be normal, in the public square and try to simultaneously ban true preaching of salvatory caritas.


 * Echoing the more level-headed editors above (whose only agenda is integrity of articles and the salvation of Wikipedia from Dark Ages infamy of amateurs, as well as extremists, or any combination thereof, even if, Heaven forbid, they come in vastly superior numbers to enforce groupthink), I recommend a review of the idea that lending weight to homophobic slurs against James, is only a systemic bias seemingly to be perpetuated most adulatory by a certain Wikiproject and a few fringe groups, among inconclusive and self-admittedly impoverished mainstream academics (apart from Civil War sensationalism), to the expense of anything else of value to the life of James or his impact on history. I would advise the Wikiproject to stop disrupting this critical article with its own spin on historical spin-doctoring, perhaps taking a chill pill to admit their own blind faith that there's a gay conspiracy around every corner.  It makes them look homophobic, now that I think of it.  But fine, let them do it and see how helpful it is to their claims and "the cause", especially in how others view their triumphalist view on the state of homosexual libertinism in the present day vis a vis what it actually was back then, still convinced it's not enough tolerance for what they demand in their desires to be the standardized acceptance, even ingrained to children as an escapism from the reality of life and the perpetuation of the species (breeding, among positive relationships).


 * Don't be surprised if this statement of mine is met with the attitudes of a homosexual version of Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell, because this duality of purity and corruption is all that fixates in their heart, as an obsession. In any case, when James reaffirmed Henry VIII's buggery act, if and ever he were to break his own code, the point is that you are supposed to do as the ruler tells you, not follow him into wrongs.  With Christians, none are expected to be saints.  All true believers acknowledge their sins and beg forgiveness before God, even if they fail to be attentive to the self-delusions of their brother they charge themselves to keep, then double back with rage against the permissiveness of love and allowing their brother to apostasy, realizing they could have been more loving.  You see, it is shameful for the Christian for it to have even got that far, in their love for Free Will to their brothers.  Sometimes, Free Will is suspended out of adoration on the part of the Christian, because they really do care that much for their neigbor.  Their performance in following the 2nd Commandment truly weighs heavily on their Christian soul, so let up a little on the stereotyping of religious people for their commitment to God and to do this, they devote themselves to giving you a hand.  Maybe you want to drive down the wrong side of the road and don't care, but Pax Christi anyways.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly read WP:AGF, as you've failed it considerably. Next, read WP:REFACTOR, mostly the very first sentence. -- ALLSTAR  echo 13:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bottom line, was this guy a monarch or member of a royal family that was known or thought to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender???? If so, include him in the category. If not, don't. Also, here is a thought, provide a reliable source that demonstrates that he was known or thought to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender if we go for inclusion.TIA --Tom 13:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is on those who keep making these crackpot claims and vilified those who've been true to Wikipedia, in formally requesting substantiation. So far, all they've ever done, is adhere to the inconclusive "evidence" found in modernist misunderstanding of politically motivated attacks, incidentally about effeminancy (e.g. "you're gay motherfucker!" "ooh yeah, wanna make something of it bitch?!").  I suppose Hitler was Jewish after all.  Relish the irony, because the rumors are all true!  We never landed on the moon!  Alien bodysnatchers are the illuminati!  24.255.11.149 (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your vehement attacks on homosexuality are only serving to give Christians a bad name. I'm not condoning it (I'm one myself) but we should still love our neighbours! --Mark J (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Read WP:GAME, because you're guilty of this. Anybody can see it plainly in the editing history.  Anyways, what I wrote was: It might be well to consider WP:AGF that a certain Wikiproject, like any other interested party in that belief, has not really noted this wide assortment of things, but then again, there are indeed some editors whom I will not reveal (at the cost of my persecution, which will come regardless for speaking the obvious), that are actually seizing upon the misunderstanding to try and vilify or defame James (and those seemingly insensitive enablers, like the above innocents whose patience has resulted in caving into the abuse dealt them, untrue things for the sake of backing out of the corner they've been pushed into) for things done according to his actual stance (against their personal interests or motives), such that condemnation of sodomy (e.g. Bacchanalian orgy), would be turned into hypocrisy.  So, keep on digging a deeper hole.  I can watch and laugh all I want.  I'll let you make the mistake of editing the article to your personal fancy.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's already sourced that some historians feel James was at least bisexual, hence the category. It's a shame the anon feels it is vilifying James to class him as at least bisexual, but that seems to say more about the anon's beliefs and POV than the article subject or other editors. Jeffpw (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a universal belief, just the compromise of truth that you will go for, to make sure the poison spreads in between the lines. It's a shame that your blatant dishonesty is destroying a good article, formerly featured too.  Be held responsible for your actions and own up to them.  Make up for your errors.  Your faction seems to get whatever it wants, no matter who comes along to ask for proof, no matter how much you insist on pushing your favored POV.  In case it isn't clear to you, an omission of the box doesn't mean he's not homosexual or bisexual.  You just keep putting your stamp of approval on it, tailored to your POV.  You violated more of Wikipedia's rules and conventions than I can count on all my fingers, so I suggest reading WP:NOT.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, although I am a political opponent of James on many levels, it is not I who believes that calling him a "faggot" will hurt his cause on a personal level. You just refuse to acknowledge that he was called this during the reign of his son, by those against him politically (according to the accepted standards of the time period), who thought it would be scandalous and outright damaging to his rule.  Because of their convention, the slurs did help portray his rule as the beginning of the end for those who were out to get him (a self-sustainting lie).  Now, you repeat homophobic insults and intertwine your own homosexuality with his identity, although he was a straight man stuck in a quicksand of backbiting, that included homophobic language.  Why perpetuate falsehoods, other than to make yourself feel better that somebody famous is alleged to be gay like you, especially if you like to smear him as a hypocrite, for all the abuse you suffered by fundie Bible thumpers?  It is obvious where you stand,, in this.  Your damned Wikiproject does not have ownership of this article, but continue using him as your scapegoat and defile Wikipedia.  When it's a massive dungheap, you will be king of the rotten.  Enjoy your tyranny off ideas that nobody cares to hear.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No one called him a faggot and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop insinuating such. Additionally, keep your comments on the article itself and stop with the homophobia veiled in wanna-be intellectualism. Was that "or bend over" really necessary or relevant to the article? Was that "faggot" really necessary or relevant to the article? -- ALLSTAR  echo 14:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to continually direct this article into a gay fantasy, when indeed, the allegations of homosexuality had to do with the Stuart court of politics, rather than sexuality (which you've never put into perspective)? Is it necessary to sexualize a decidedly asexual and even frigid, Calvinistic environment, by anachronistically depicting events in ignorant eyes of modern libertinism? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this edit war will last forever. You want to go tit-for-tat? I can play just as long. But, I will never have sullied my reputation by reverting your falsehoods. I'll perhaps, encourage those you abuse and vilify here to not touch the article when it comes down to it. Let you do all the movement and us all the criticism. You are into domination? Comes with the territory, huh? You've said vicious things about several people, so you're not innocent. I'm simply calling you out on it. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "thought" is not enough. Known, or consensus of scholarly opinion would be necessary, and it hasn't been demonstrated. The most that can be shown is that he was attacked for being gay at the time, and he had close friendships that could conceivably have been also. More than that require reading back our own attitudes into 17th century psychology and sexual behavior. "some historians" is not enough for a controversial category. I think the general consensus about such categories is that such categorization takes some real evidence, and specific consensus about the individual . As far as i and most of us are concerned, this is not a matter of vilifying him or not--but a matter of historical interest.  His religious preoccupations also. They're for history, not to support our own views on anything.  We have no possible way of knowing now to what extend he may or may not have been a hypocrite. Of course his opponents called him everything they could possibly think of, or that served their own purposes. Doesn't mean it wasn't true. Doesn't mean it was true, either.

But we won't settle anything by personal attacks, and people who indulge in them them are warned they will be blocked if they continue  DGG (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IP has been blocked, this page has been protected. Thanks, Moreschi :) -- SatyrTN (talk contribs) 15:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, DGG did the page protection. Moreschi blocked the IP and unprotected the page. And I've undone the hiding of this discussion. Nothing here needs to be hidden - there is useful stuff among the overblown rhetoric. Carcharoth (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - you're right - Thanks, DGG! Though Carcharoth, I have to question un-hiding the rant of the IP.  Personally, I find the comments entire thing offensive, it bordered on attacking, was trolling, and the only "useful stuff" in it has been brought forth before. I would rather have deleted it outright rather than hide it.  Is there a reason to keep it?  Perhaps you or someone could summarize the useful bits and we can delete the borderline rest? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that others have replied to the comments and a thread of discussion has developed. You can't step in at a late stage and say "let's get rid of this". And hiding achieves nothing really. What you could do is archive it. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this mean Pax Christi guy will not appear anymore, because hooray!!! I couldn't get into his rants far enough to even know which side he was on - So thanks. YAC (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:LGBT royalty SECTION BREAK I
I really don't think the category is appropriate, there is no consensus that he actually was, but that is beside the point. The category is jarring, since it in the time of the subject, not only was the term homosexual never used (it was coined c.1860 I believe), but the very concept of homosexuality was not understood as something seperate from regular sexuality the way we view it today. So to imply that he was somehow part of the "LGBT community" allongside that famous drag queen, Prince Charles seems a little ahistoric. Anyway, I though that categories by sexual orientation were all being deleted as "non-notable cross categoraisations." Lobojo (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Especially about the historical perspective of categorizing people based on today's definitions of sexuallity. Anyways, --Tom 14:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because the word "gay" didn't mean what it means today doesn't mean that there weren't gay people - just that they were called something else. Introverts, Uranians, Pederasts, Witches, Sodomites, Faggots - whatever the word was, we currently use LGBT or homosexual.  Wikipedia in general prefers the most widely used term.  James should have the Category:LGBT royalty in exactly the same way Langston Hughes should have the Category:LGBT African Americans, even though in his time it would have been Category:Colored homosexuals.
 * And I disagree that the concept was not understood as something separate from regular sexuality - James himself said that sodomy was among the crimes "ye are bound in conscience never to forgive." That pretty strongly indicates something separate. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No the idea that some people are homosexuals is a very modern idiom, and originally was considered a mental ilness (till 1975 I think). Until 150 years ago there was just buggery, some people may have had a prediliction to buggery, but they were never grouped in nay special way. I am slightly pertered that we have these categories at all as I know homosexuals that opose the term LBGT, and categories need to be undisputed. In a nutshell though: There is no possiblity to put any explaination on the inclusion in a category. Since the matter is in dispute, and always will be, he cannot go in the category. It is a blemmish on this page, and it is blemmish on the category page, since it is not true to say. It is true to say he might have been, but we cant say he is. He could go in the category "Royals who may have engaged in same-sex activities". You see the category implies "HE WAS GAY", this is yet to be proven to a WP:V standard, ergo we cannot say this and he cannot go in the category. Lobojo (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "The gay community" is indeed a new concept (relatively). However, people have been in same-sex relationships for all of recorded history.  See Khnumhotep & Niankhkhnum, for example, or Band of Thebes. Just because they weren't grouped together doesn't mean they didn't exist.  One could say exactly the same thing about the African American community. The other view (that homosexuality is new) is a form of POV that whitewashes the history of a whole community.
 * 2) That categories need to be undisputed is absolute hogwash - show me the policy that says that.
 * 3) How is the category a blemish? Does that mean that being gay is a blemish? Or that we somehow can't include opposing viewpoints on an article - that some historians say he was gay and others dispute that?
 * 4) WP:V has been satisfied time and again - there are reputable scholars that question his sexuality and that claim he had a relationship with one or more of his male courtiers. Per Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which says "[people] should only be filed in a gay-related category if factual, reliable sources can be provided to support the assertion."
 * I'm replacing the category. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be so dramatic. Nobody is suggesting that people haven't been is same-sex relationships throughout history, only that there was no community of such people who were grouped as LBGT, but again this just a side point and I don't want to get into this kind of debate with you. Please don't pretend to misread my words to imply that I am some kind of gay-basher. I think you know exactly what I mean when I say the category is a blemish, but if not I'll spell it out: it is a blemish because it is an obvious and indisputable error on an other wise FA candidate quality article, no more amateur dramatics please. (My words were "and it is blemish on the category page, since it is not true to say". so you have deliberately both misquoted and misread me in order to force the implication that I meant "being gay is a blemish" as you put it. This is an outrageous slur on your part, and you should apologize.) Yes there are, but that doesn't mean he WAS gay, only that some people said he was, so he can join Tom Cruise Michael Portillo and Edward Heath in Catagory:Suspected homosexuals, but not Category:Homosexuals, do you understand this point? Lobojo (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And as to point (2), I would have thought this to be so obvious as to not even need expressing. Categories need to be NPOV just like everything else in wikipedia, and so when something is in dispute it cannot be categorised according to either side of the debate because that is so clearly a POV problem. But since you don't believe me you can read it stated explicitly on the very first line of the LGBT parent category page where the criteria for including people in the LGBT sub-categories are set out:
 * Articles about notable lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity, or whose sexual orientation or gender identity is known and not debated by historians.
 * So unless ths dispute is cleared up among the historians, please to not add the category again, this is such a clear cut case that doing so repeatedly could be considered disruptive. Best regards, Lobojo (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:LGBT royalty SECTION BREAK II
This doesn't seem like something to debate. Its not our place to decide which scholars are right, and decide if he was gay. If it is not a proven absolute, then it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Speculation and theories do not belong in an article. Peace. Canutethegreat (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CONSENSUS. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What consensus? You are the only person actively arguing that the cat should stay. Categories need to be uncategorical. When you put something saying "GAY" at the bottom of biography, that reads to everyone as wikipedia says "he is gay". It this case, that is not only a NPOV problem, because we are taking sides in a scholarly dispute, but it is farcically ahistoric, LBGT! Good grief! But the main point is that we cannot say he is gay, it is that simple, it is nothing more or less that an error, on this page and in the category page. Please do not replace the erroneous tag. You called me in to this dispute by posting on a board somewhere so I came to this from a completely neutral point of view, and only became aware of the dispute when I saw you post about it somewhere else. As it happens I think that the objections the category are entirely legitimate however badly there were expressed above (though I understand the frustration), and frankly looking at the category, the whole lot should probably go, and it should certainly be renamed "homosexual royalty" or "royalty who engaged in same sex relations". Lobojo (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, one could dispute wheather James was bisexual. The question begs to be asked, was he intimate with men for sexual gratification or for political advantages. Remember folks, the 1500-1600's were different times, sex was a strong political tool in those days. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and many historians dispute the idea completely which is why we cant have a category. Lobojo (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no theory among established historians that he was a poof. I agree with user:canutethegreat that this is no debate. I view (hey) Jimmy as being equal in efficiancy as his parents, grandparents, and his sons....combined. How can we even tag him as a LGBT Monarch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.69.144 (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:LGBT royalty SECTION BREAK III
You reverted me twice, I came here to try to mediate this dispute after I saw it being discussed elsewhere. You claim that I have not engaged on the talk page, yet this is the opposite the facts, as you can see. This is a very clear cut case. The consensus you refer to does not exist - I only see 2 editors here activlly supporting the CAT, and 4 opposing it, including two outside editors myself and DGG. I have demonstrated above why this CAT is not applicable, this is not a matter of opinion, there is a dispute among historians ergo he does not belong in the category, and that is that. Please revert yourself. Lobojo (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you get your numbers from - over the past three months there have been several editors discussing the issues surrounding James' personal life and how to represent it in the article. DGG hasn't even touched the sexuality issue. You've jumped in recently, and I welcome your comments - but deleting something from the article that has been there for a couple months without coming to consensus first raised my hackles a bit.
 * And perhaps we need (another) outside mediator. You say
 * there is a dispute, ergo he doesn't belong in the cat
 * and I say
 * there is a dispute, ergo he can be in the cat
 * Perhaps the version that was agreed to in the previous discussions can be restored until Carcharoth and qp10qp and/or others can weigh in with their opinions? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have understood this at all. This is nothing to do with the versions of the page. The current version is a neutral and consensus version as far as I can tell. I am not bothered by the content of the article. I am only worried about the category, DGG questioned the appropriateness of the category above, and so do others. In defence of the category I only see two editors. You "can say" whatever you like, but as I definitively proved to you above, in order to use this category sexuality needs to conform to the first line of the parent category that reads: "Articles about notable lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity, or whose sexual orientation or gender identity is known and not debated by historians.", and nobody is claiming that historians are unanimous on this matter, not even in the article. So it cannot stay. "there is a dispute, ergo he can be in the cat" is the exact opposite of the policy on wikipedia. Sorry. Lobojo (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad - you're right that DGG questioned the cat. I got confused with the indents.
 * However, you keep quoting Category:LGBT people (which is *two* categories removed), while Category:LGBT royalty clearly states "This category includes both monarchs and members of royal families who are known or thought to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender."
 * Furthermore, the definition of the parent's parent cat says one thing, but WP guidelines on cat inclusion - Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality have no such stipulation.
 * So tell me again why the category cannot be on this article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The keywords there being known or thought to be... -- ALLSTAR  echo 04:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that it said that there are immaterial, it shouldn't have saif that there since the parent category sets out the rules for all the subs, and the rules there are based on a clear consensus that has developed on wikipedia, that a user changed that on his own initiative and against that consensus is neither here nor there. I have fixed that now. You are free to have a category "Royals who were thought to "be gay" and then you can include this guy, but you cannot include him in a category "gay royals". This is not a big deal. The cat needs to go, it is not defensible in policy terms, or in logical terms. Lobojo (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the edit where the anti-consensus langugauge was added, without so much as an edit summary or any discussion to explain why he was changing the criteria for inclusion in the CAT without actually changing the name of the cat. Consensus was carefully built up to determine what goes into the LBGT cats, this is against that consensus, so I have changed it. Lobojo (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay - that is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. I've shown you logically that the category belongs, so you change the category so that it doesn't. You're making up rules about how categories are structured - specifically, Categories do not form a tree. You're also applying guidelines as if they were policy.  And I've even shown you Wikipedia policy which states the category can be applied, which you haven't addressed.


 * You obviously have a POV here, so I'm going to stop arguing until others have a chance to chime in. I really believe you need to step back from the article and the cat and examine why you're being stubborn and changing the rules to suit your outcome. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? I have a point of view? What would that be? You have alredy implies I am a gay-basher, something you have not apologised for. I have really gone out f my way to mediate this dispute, I support the current wording and only object to the most minor point! You seem to think that I need to take your side completly otherwise I must have some agenda. I'm not changing any rules. WIkipedia needs to be NPOV, when there is a dispute about wheter someone is gay or Jewish or anything even remotely controvertial, you cannot use caterogise that take sides in that dispute. That somebody changed the wording of a category expliciply against this long standing convention is not something you can use. Lobojo (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I came here after SatyrTN messaged me that this has flared up again. I've read the discussion and completely disagree with lobojo. In the first place, SatyrTN is not arguing this alone. AllStarEcho and I have clearly said we should include this as a category. Further up the page we have qp10qp, who was responsible for bringing this article back up to FA standards, also agreeing this is an appropriate category. The best one can say is that there is not total consensus for the cat, but that more favor it than want it removed. Lobojo, you have in the past demonstrated an imperfect grasp of policy (unsurprising, given your relatively new status here), as well as an alarming tendency to debate and push to have things your own way. That's just not how things work here. As the category remained after discussion and consensus last time, guidelines permit it, and more want it to stay than want it to be deleted, it is appropriate for it to remain until actual consensus emerges. And one last point: Lobojo, you say you are here to "mediate", but your words and actions prove otherwise. Mediators are supposed to remain neutral and dispassionate. You are neither. You have a position, are arguing it, and are acting outside of consensus to enact your view on the article. I suggest you stop. There have already been 3 editors blocked out of this article. Let's not go for four. Jeffpw (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I read this lengthy paragraph and I find no defene on your part for the position you calim to expouse. Merely a personal attack on me, I am inexpeirenced and I have an "alarming tendancy to debate" (mea cupla), "I'm not here to mediate", not to mention your extraordinaty and completly uncalled for attacks on me on your talkpage. I'm not neutral? Well let me ask you, do I have any previous history of editing subjects on Monarchy or LBGT issues - i don't think so. I am here to mediate. How could I be more neutral - I fully support the text of the article, the only think I disagreed on is the category. That is the ONLY thing I object to on this page. The category cannot stay, as the parent category makes entirely clear. Please adress the issue. Lobojo (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Read Mediation. Read Dispute resolution. You are not impartial, and have inserted yourself directly into the conflict as a participant. You removed the category while discussion was ongoing, and in spite of consensus earlier to keep it. How on earth you can claim to be impartial is beyond me. And your removal of multiple articles from this category, in spite of their having reliable sources to back up the claim, further shows you are not neutral. Even after apologizing for removing the category by "mistake' on another article, you failed to reinsert it. Let's call a spade a spade: You have a POV as to this dispute and a stake in the outcome. Jeffpw (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I answered you to the point ignoring your ad-homs (again) and you reply again off the point accusing me of bad faith and partiality. I am not a formal mediator Jeff, just a regular editor who tried to mediate this dispute in a good faith fashion. The consensus is much wider that anything on this page. The consensus on wikipedia is NPOV, this category violates that, The consensus on LGBT categories (and all people categories in general) is that due to the categorical nature of categories, there needs to be no historical dispute. Plase agian stop with the ad-homs and stick to the point of defending the category if that is what you want to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobojo (talk • contribs) 15:40, 29 December 2007 UTC


 * I don't have enough experience with WP:Categories to comment on it's architecture, hierarchical properties, or inheritance to subcategories (although SatyrTN's arguments are compelling). However, I will comment on the specific Category:LGBT royalty as it's applied to the article, and that category clearly does not require 100% certainty or agreement as it says: ...known or thought to be... [emphasis mine]. There are sufficient notable historians that believe that James probably had some kind of sex with one or more of his male admirers and/or was bisexual. Yes, there is a lack of consensus among historians, as some of them didn't pay much attention to his sexuality, and others may have sanitized it. We may never know for certain one way or the other. However, there is debate about his sexuality, and based on that, WP should report all the significant positions taken by historians. Categories are not flexible by nature, but based on this category, as it is, James would fit into the "thought to be" camp, and therefore including the category with the article on James is appropriate. I don't see consensus to remove the category. Also note: This discussion is about the application of an existing category to this article.  Any discussion about the wording or inclusiveness of the category itself belongs on the category talk page, not here. — Becksguy (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes you are quite right, ot does say that, but that is a mistake, the parent category, of which this level is the higest one to actually contain names, sais that people cannot go in here if there is any historical dispute as to their sexuality. As soon asyou agree that there is debate, you must remove the category, have a loot at the guidelines here: Category:LGBT people. Categoies are flexible, but unlike lists they can only make categoricalpoints, by definition. I fully support including James in a category "Royals who may have been gay" or soemthing, but this is nothing more or less than an error and is against NPOV since putting him in the category takes sides in the historical debate. Lobojo (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I read this talk page last night, and honest to God, I have no idea why this conversation is so long and so personal. Historians suggest James I had relationships with his male courtiers, and he had children with Anne of Denmark, which (historians suggest) would make him bisexual. James I was royalty. Thus the inclusion of LGBT royalty. And - if the article is accurate - it's featured status not only confirms this but verifies its very high quality, I don't understand why anyone would care what category he's in. --Moni3 (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but there dispute among historians over this point. Some say there was some say there wasn't. Wikipedia presents these views in he articles, but the rules clearly state that you can only put a categorical category on the page if threre is no dispute among historians. I have suggested this article be placed in a cetegory of "possible/suspected homosexauls. Lobojo (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no undisputed categories. That's what history is - living people who dispute what happened to the dead. --Moni3 (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but there are undispued categories, indeed all categoris need to be. James I is rightly in "Scottish monarchs", "English monarchs", and "Scottish princes" and "Scottish non-fiction writers". These are all undisputed, that is why they are here. I refer you to the parent cat where it makes this point explicitly. Lobojo (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then, as someone who has written something about history (a Wikipedia article) I dispute his lineage and claim I am the rightful heir. It's about time I got a scepter. But on a serious and less symbolic note, I remain unpersuaded, but the issue is quite simple, even a perfect syllogism: James had relationships with men and women, making him bisexual. James was a member of a royal family. He is then a bisexual member of the royal family. I do not think a talk page will resolve this, however, but I have not yet seen a proposal for a resolution. Is there one forthcoming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you became a serious college professor and an expert on the Kings of England, you could then contribute to the debate and possibly convince all the people who say he wasnt gay that he was, and then come back here in 50 years and put the category back, and I would support you! You could also try to prove you are rightful heir, but unless you get some natble and reliable sources on your side, we couldnt question James' lineage here! But right now we cannot say that he is a "LBGT royal", since it is a metter of dipute among historians. Lobojo (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:LGBT royalty SECTION BREAK IV
Lobojo, first let me apologize if it sounded like I was calling you homophobic - that was not intended in any way. After taking a day off from even reading comments, I think I can see your argument. You're saying that there is disagreement about whether James was gay, therefore he doesn't belong in the category. And I can sort of understand that, if this were a black-and-white world. For living people, we can only categorize them in ways that they themselves have (or would) categorize themselves - for legal reasons and because that's the right way to do things.

WP:LGBT has struggled over this issue as well - can one really call Clark Gable gay? What about Achilles? Achilles certainly didn't go to the local gay bar, and wouldn't have even known the concept of one. For people who have long since passed on, no one can tell us directly if they really were gay.

The scheme the WikiProject has ended up using is to say that if they're living, WP:BLP trumps any claims that a person is gay. A notable example of this is Larry Craig. He may or may not have been trolling for sex in a men's room, but he says he isn't gay - therefore, he's not. Another example is Jodie Foster - she's been living with a woman for 15 years, raises her kids with the woman, even thanks her "for sticking by her through thick and thin". But she's never called herself a lesbian or bisexual, and never called her partner anything other than her partner. So she doesn't go in an LGBT cat.

But once they've died, there are only third-party references to go by. So if those references say "so-and-so was a sodomite", it gets treated just like other controversial information - report both sides and let the reader know what's being argued about. For the most part, if there are several reports that a person was gay, then the project has argued to also put them in the category. Otherwise the category becomes useless for anything past 50 years ago.

And to tie my comments here to your question above, I believe the "LGBT people" category description is going by WP:BLP instructions, whereas "LGBT royalty" is working from an assumption that the monarch is dead. I'm not certain that the description of one trickles down to the other, since categories aren't hierarchical, but I can see your point that they might. I hope that does a better job of explaining the reasoning presented here. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lobojo: SatyrTN has explained the rational for including James in the category. I will attempt to explain why I see that subcategories do not inherit criteria from the parent category. In a strict hierarchical classification system, or tree structure, parents control the child entities. That is, the constraints and characteristics are inherited from the parent entity. One of the best examples is the biological taxonomy system. Or a typical company organizational chart.

However there are other types of classification systems that are not hierarchical or tree structured. Categories in Wikipedia is one such system. In WP, subcategories can have more than one parent category, for example. It's more like a network system, with some hierarchical elements, in that categories are lumped together based on a common characteristic, in this case, LGBT.

I can't find anything that says that WP subcategories must inherit their criteria for inclusion from the parent category. In other words, my interpretation is that each category is free to determine criteria separate from other categories, as well as from their parent or parents. If Category:LGBT royalty was a strict hierarchical child of Category:LGBT people, then your argument would have validity, as the child category could not relax the requirements for inclusion. Can you find some policy that states that child categories must follow the parent criteria? I couldn't, and I've done a lot of reading in the last few days.

I believe that you are arguing from a good faith interpretation of the category structure in WP, although I think it's a misunderstanding. However, I'm willing to listen to reasoned arguments, and if they are sufficiently compelling, to follow them. I'm encouraged that you don't find the article itself to be an issue, which indicates that it's not the subject matter that is your concern.

I like to believe that we are all here to improve WP, and to make it easier for readers to find useful information, not to waste time and energy debating a category. I was rather astonished to see the amount of debate on this particular issue, especially after having expended much energy of the question of James's sexuality last month. I hope that clarifies my rationale for keeping the category. Regards — Becksguy (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your constructive responses, apology accepted Satyr. Note, that there are no names in the category LBGT people, neither are there any name in the category LBGT people by occupation, so if not to the subcategories, to whom is this referring? It is referring to the sub cats, which were recently reorganised this way. Until an editor changes the wording it had the same language on this category too! You are correct that there is no hierarchy, however that doesn't mean that looking top-down, a category (this one anyway) has a finite set of sub-cats. This is a universal rule in any case, not just for LGBT articles, it is just spelt out more clearly here. I think the article is excellent, one of the best I have read. But we need to be strict about categories. Categories can only apply when they are categorical, unless they are are vague categories like "suspected LBGT people", which would be fine, but probably too loose to be allowed on wikipedia. The category needs to agree with the information we have on a person, otherwise it an error. If historians debate whether or not he was an LbGT person, we must report this and not take sides. If you then write "LGBT person" at the bottom of the article, you have taken sides and violated NPOV, if you cant get away with writing it in the article, you cant write it in a category. BLP is not the issue here, the issue is accuracy. The third-party references do not agree with each other, some say he was gay, and it is contentious debate, with strong arguments on both sides, unlike say Liberace. Lobojo (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The LGBT royalty category has had that description for over a year now without anyone questioning it. Furthermore, the wording for both categories was in place bofer the LGBT wikiproject came in to existence and I suspect it needs to be revised, given the project's discussions.
 * I understand your point, Lobojo, but I think you're making the issue too black-and-white. With that logic, there would be no-one who died before 1967 in any of the LGBT people categories, except perhaps Oscar Wilde. Certainly not anyone of any importance, because there will always be someone who says "They can't have been gay - they're my favorite classical musician!" - or whatever the category.  For historical articles especially, sticking to a hard and fast rule would wipe out any mention of sexuality, effectively hiding a whole bunch of LGBT history.  That's why there's so much push-back on this article - not because we're trying to make something up, but because there are too many POV-pushers (and I'm not saying you're one of them) that do whatever they can to hide the sexuality of important figures.  Take a moment and read the Personal relationships of James I of England article.  There are, indeed, questions about how deep his relationships with men were, but most scholars agree that he *did* have significant relationships with men. Whether they were "sexual", "romantic", "platonic" or whatever, they were significant attachments that would, by most definitions, fall under a bisexual or gay description. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That there was a mistake (the change was inserted without comment anywhere or even an edit summary) and it wasnt noticed for a while does not mean we should not correct it. It is black and white, and no, there are many many people from before then who were gay by ALL scholarly accounts. And even if that is the case, so what. You are free to create a category along the lines of "Historical figures who may have been homosexual/bisexual" or something more elegant. But this category says "Gay royal", when that is a disputed point among historians. I would happily support the new category, I view it as useful and interesting and would not hide any history. But the current situation is wrong. What I would suggest is to Listify this category, that way James I could go on the list, since list can be annotated and caveats added. How does that sound for a compromise? Lobojo (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In a case where the dispute among historians was very one sided, *maybe* you could argue that the category could apply in its current form. But here there is real debate so it is more clear cut than others. Lobojo (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * History is never black and white, but that is neither here nor there. What, exactly is this debate about? What's the end to it? Have you or will you, Lobojo, remove James I from this category by yourself? --Moni3 (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will, but I will just be agressivly reverted so I would rather try to persuade others to compromize as I have suggested. What do you think of the suggestions I have made. I think this can be worked out without tedious disputes on ANI and elsewhere, I hope so anyway. History can be black and white, such as "James I was king of England", categories are not approraite where things are grey unless the catergory itself is gray. What do you think of my suggestion to Listify and create a broader category. Lobojo (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I also understand your point, Lobojo. And I completely agree that the way the LGBT People category is currently defined, we can't apply that category to James.  However, we can apply LGBT Royalty based on its current definition.  My view is that categories are meant to help people find articles, nothing more, and nothing less.  They are categorical pigeonholes, and that's what I meant about them being inflexible.  One can point out the various schools of reliable thought in an article and balance them based on relative importance, but how do you do that in categories?
 * Categories, by their very nature, concentrate on one defining characteristic, or a few characteristics, and ignore all the rest. Covering the nuances would result in an overwhelmingly large number of specialized categories, differing in only some characteristic. For example, even a category for Popes is not simplistic, as there are Popes that died after election, but before being ordained Bishops, elected Popes that died before being consecrated, as well as antipopes with greater or lesser claim to the office. At some point you have to lump the items into a category and let the article(s) sort them out. BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by Listify, but it sounds interesting. — Becksguy (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But the definition is false, it was changed against consensus by a random editor and nobody noticed for a while, this doesn't set a precedent. You can't do that it categories, that is the weakness of categories, so when you have a dispute about say whether somebody was a Jew, you cannot add them to the category "Jews", but you can add them to a "List of Jews" since you make a note explaining the debate. We do not have to have a category for every feature of a persons life. It is much better that we have less information that is 100% accurate than more information that is only mainly accurate. Lobojo (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Listify means turn the category into List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: H-J, or in this case, List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual royalty.
 * I object to the category Historical figures who may have been homosexual/bisexual or anything even remotely like that because it will get shot down in CfD within the first week of creation. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:LGBT royalty SECTION BREAK V
Well, that is because vague categories are frowned upon in wikipedia, and you may be correct. I think it would stand a decent chance actually, if we could think of a good snappy title. Since there are other people like this, other kings and prinecs and so on, who were rumored to have been into boys. And there is rarely any consenus, which is why the category is so empty as it stands. There were 100s of major historical figures who likely gay, but there is rarely any concrete evidence, so if you tried adding this cat to any of those people it would be reverted by the people who watch those pages (rightly too). A list would really be the best option in my view, it really would be exelent and interesting. I feel that the category isn't really adding anything here. The people in the category are all very obscure, and some of them are not gay at all - two of them are merely pedophiles who forcibly raped underaged boys, Alexander was "gay" but so was everyone around him, and "royal" isn't really approriate for anyone who lived before the fall of Rome. In short the category doesn't really list any clear cut major figues who were certainly gay only these ones (James, but it shouldn't), some minor princes, and 2 pedophiles. Let us Listify this category, it could have 100s of annotaed entries and provide a intesting history dataset, unlike this anemic category. Lobojo (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show me sources for the controversy here? While I know several sources that say James was gay, I think I've only seen one that says that's untrue.  I'd be interested, too, if User:qp10qp would offer his insight. I'm tired of hitting my head against a wall that won't yeild to consensus. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the category does need renaming. The acronym "LGBT" has very modern connotations that are not appropriate in the context of this article. Seriously. I'd be willingly to bet there would be some support for a carefully thought out rename at CfD, but probably no overall consensus. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Category:Historical figures discussed in LGBT studies, with Category:Historical rulers discussed in LGBT studies as a subcategory? Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or maybe parenthetical category names work better? Category:LGBT studies (historical figures), with Category:LGBT studies (historical rulers) - which makes clear that the focus is on the academic study of the matter, not THE TRUTH (tm). Carcharoth (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If I might add my two cents worth. Yes, speaking as a guy who bats for the other team myself, I find this modern labelling very tiresome. LGBT, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual (I came across the term a little while ago); the terms are all trying to put people into boxes. And quite frankly, they don't all fit in the same box. Personally I don't call myself gay, because that's someone else's label for me. Now James produced a swag of kids. I don't know if he enjoyed it all that much, but he did his royal duty particular well. And he had his male 'favourites'. And he was probably in the sack with some, or many, of them. I don't know if that makes him what we would call gay or bisexual? Who knows? And in the end, does it really matter?--Gazzster (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, scrap the category altogether. --Gazzster (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Placing people (or things, places, concepts, etc.) in categories is for the purpose of making it easier for a reader to find articles related in some way to the the terms he/she is interested in.
 * Having James in this category makes him a "person of interest" to someone looking for a connection between LGBT *AND* royalty.
 * The LGBT connection for James has been already been shown to exist, even if debated, within the article itself (and within the daughter article) using reliable sources.
 * But readers won't necessarily know about that connection, unless the category leads them to James. Which is why it's needed.
 * Gazzster is correct in that pigeonholing people, and also items, doesn't work because they don't all fit. And the more exclusive a category is, the less items fit. And that means the less likely searchers are to find items of interest using that category.
 * In other words, the inclusiveness of Category:LGBT royalty is correct, and the exclusiveness of Category:LGBT people is wrong. Because exclusiveness hinders finding items of interest.
 * I believe one solution is to open up the parent category, LGBT people, and make it as inclusive as the subcategory LBGT royalty. That is, people known to be, or thought to be, LBGT—rather than people without any doubt known to be LBGT. Why have categories if they are overly exclusive and aren't helpful? Although I don't expect this will be changed any time soon.
 * Another possible solution is to create a category (or rename this one) that indicates its inclusiveness. Although prospects for that seem dim based on earlier comments.
 * I'm going to reserve comment on listification.
 * Otherwise, stick with what works here for James, the existing category per existing consensus. — Becksguy (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) That does not mean we don't need to be accurate about where things go, we cannot compromise accuracy for expideince. (2) This would also be achieved with a list, or a more exact category for people who "may have been gay royals". (3) It hasn't been shown to exist, some historians say that it did not, the article describes the debate in brief. (4) Categories are inferior to lists in every way exept that you dont end up with explicit links at the bottom of pages. We cannot have a link here saying gay royals since it is in dispute and policy (read here points 7 and 8) is clear. (5,6,7) The subcategory must follow the consensus rules, this would lead to an immediate ANI posting, wherer all the LBGT categories would likely get put up for deletion again. This goes against wikipeidia category guidelines explicitly. We don't need categories, we have them only to the extent that they are exact and undisputed. (8) This is a good idea, though it will have a poor chance of surviing CfD. (g) This is the only way to keep James I tied in with Gay Royals. (9) The current sitution is against policy since he does not belong in the category according to the rules. I am not going to edit war. If people remove the tag without a solution here, then this will need to go to ANI or something. Lobojo (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, sad to say that a user has just removed the tag (that is required by policy here. I put it there to focus discussion, and I felt that we were making real progress towards a solution here. I am not going to put it back a third time since this user has been very abusive to me in the past and would just revert me immediately and spam me with 5 warnings. The only solution I can see at the moment is to make anoter version of the category as a list, (the category can stay but without James I) and add James to that in an annotated form. Lobojo (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarification: Is it the royalty that is being disputed in this discussion of the category or the LGBT part? If the LGBT part for the term bisexual because it's a common term to describe an age-old characteristic?

I think the category as LGBT royalty is appropriate for James I for two reasons: 1) Multiple sources allude to James' relationships with men. To exclude him because a source says unequivocally he never had relationships with men calls more into question about that source than it does James' qualification for the category. 2) I find it difficult to follow the category rules being as strict as they are in an area such as sexual orientation when historians, librarians, and relatives of historical subjects have altered documents to hide details about subjects due to generational attitudes about homosexuality. To follow that rule to the letter would mean to eradicate all categories regarding sexual orientation, since these would almost always be disputed. And that, simply, is unacceptable. If the rules are strict, I do not think the responsibility should be placed on the category or upon the article for James I, but the rule itself. It should be amended or changed. --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) But multiple sources also alude to him not actually being bi, and where there is dipute we cannot add controvercial cats, the quote in the aritlce is merely commenting on the sum of the available info. (2) It the way, in an era where homosexuality was frowned upon (like today!), leaders were often smeared with allegations of buggery and effeminacy and so on. That is the other side of the coin. Categories can really only maintain meaning on wikipedia, if the are taken categorically. I would oppose the rule change you suggest, but can we at least agree that under the current rules the cat needs to go from this article, and Listified? Lobojo (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point to one or more of those sources that say he wasn't bi, please? I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative - I seriously haven't seen any. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is one from the article: "The evidence of his correspondence and contemporary accounts have led some historians to conclude that the king was homosexual or bisexual. In fact, the issue is murky." (Bucholz, 2004)Lobojo (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What a delightfully obscure way to say....wait, what does that mean, anyway? "The issue is murky," does not state that James I never had relationships with men. And it's also not multiple sources. At best, it's not even one. At worst, it's poorly written. And I don't agree with your summary because the rules, quite frankly, don't apply to sexual orientation, that that means it needs to be taken out of the category. (Is it comforting or disconcerting to know we're filling gender-based destinies according to Jean Piaget: he observed boys at play and found they stopped games to argue about the rules, while girls altered the rules of their games in order to continue playing.) --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we can't agree that the category needs to go. It's entirely appropriate, referenced, consistent with the definition, does not violate any rules, and it previously passed consensus. I am working on a long list of references and quotes to show James's bisexuality and homoerotic nature, despite the sanitizing of, or silence on the issue from some other sources. I have 16 books so far (including those from Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, NYU) and a large number of quotes. The hard part is typing them all in, so it's not ready for prime time quite yet. But here are a couple of samples:
 * Young, Michael B. (2000) King James and the History of Homosexuality. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0814796931. Young (a historian) says in his biography of James: "Our conclusions are of two sorts — those that pertain to James and those that pertain more generally to the history of homosexuality.  To begin with James: he did have sex with his male favorites, and it is nonsense to deny it." (Young, p 135).  From a review: "Professor Young pulls no such punches here. He very carefully traces the history of James' relationships, beginning with his earliest affairs in Scotland, in order to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that James I was actively involved in sexual relations with his young clients".
 * Crompton, Louis. (2003) Homosexuality & Civilization. Boston: Belknap/Harvard University Press. Not only is this from one of the most respected university presses, it won an award sponsored by the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. Compton devotes a whole section on the the male partners of James I within the chapter on 16th & 17th century England. He said: "Amorous involvements with handsome male favorites were a recurring pattern in James's life." (Compton, p 382) Talking about the Duke of Lennox: "James was devastated by the loss of the man who had been his family, friend, lover, and mentor..." (Compton, p 384).

— Becksguy (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's one more thing concerning James' alleged bi-sexualism. How do we proove it? Did anybody actually catch him in any acts. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't have to prove anything. We have the historians do it for us (See the post above yours). Jeffpw (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as nobody's been able to produce sources to the contrary. The category belongs. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It can't be proved, even by historians (the primary sources don't tell us enough), but it can be deduced. So long as the article never claims to "know", or to rely on writers who claim to "know", it will remain credible. I'm glad the tag has been removed, because it seemed a shame to scar the whole article on account of one small category (the vast majority of readers would not be bothered about the categories, only about the information in the article). The category is perfectly justifiable, as many have said, because any discussion of homosexual royalty would include James, whether there is proof that he was gay or not; the article, rather than James himself, is in the category of LGBT studies.


 * On the other hand, I do not think the category is of much use at the moment, being so scanty. If the James article is in there, the Edward II of England and Richard II of England articles should be too, for much the same reasons. Also that of Henry III of France. (And many others, I imagine.) It is kind of Becksguy to draw up the list above; but I don't think piling up references is in itself significant. The article has representative references: quantity isn't necessary. In the course of his research, I wonder if Becksguy could add some more royals to the LGBT category, to make it more useful. qp10qp (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You meant Richard I of England, I'm assuming? GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Richard II. qp10qp (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, sorry I have been busy and unable to reply. Ultimatly it is clear that while many scholars say he was probably gay, there is dispute on this matter, and the most recent source cited in the article alludes to this dispute. The rules are crystal clear and I have cited them above many times - when there is dispute about a fact - no cat. Reiterating this point is the consensus statment on the parent category where it is made clear that there must be no academic dispute. Deduction, is a type of proof, if it can be deduced, it can be proven. It cannot be proven, and it cannot be deduced Qp10qp. You are making the distinction between "James" and the "Wikipedia article about James"! We cant exactly dig up his bones and add them to the category can we? This is slightly off the wall, I think you might agree on reflection. The article on "James personal relationships" belongs in the "LGBT studies" category, with that I would agree. The inclusion of people who may/may not have been gay in gay categories is putting the categorisation of the LGBT wikiproject at risk. The whole idea of these categories is conrtovercial. That is why that point it stressed at the parent cat. I urge people here to follow the guidelines and not push this to an RfC or an ANI or soemthing. Listify the category, anotate the list, add all the other "probably gay" people to the list but not the cat, and the go around linking in all the articles about the people on list through the "see also" section. List of homosexual and bisexual royaly who will take up the challenge and create the article and solve the problem? Lobojo (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, Lobojo, I ask - do you have *any* references that claim that James was not bisexual? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, one quoted in the article, some scholar of James, says that "some people say he was gay, but the question is murky." I don't know the topic inside out. What I do know is that if it sais that in the article, there is scholarly debate amongst WP:V sources, and the cat cannot stay. The verison of that paragraph was achieved after a heated battle I read in the archives, and if that is the boldest claim that the article can make, the artcile cannot have a tag. Lobojo (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lobojo, I disagree with your interpretation here: "when there is dispute about a fact - no cat". On the contrary, when there is a dispute about information, people write articles and books about them: and they come into the category of the issue.


 * Satyr, I am not sure you are asking the right question, because no one can prove whether James was bisexual or not. So no one will claim that he was not. They might say that intimate male friendship was more openly affectionate then than now; they might say the question is complex ("murky", or whatever); they might ignore the issue (I just read a book on James [James I: The Masque of Monarchy, by James Travers, 2003] that doesn't mention homosexuality or bisexuality from start to finish); but no one would claim beyond doubt that James was not bisexual, given the issue of his documented embraces, kisses with male friends, etc. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that we "prove" that James was gay, that would be unreasonable and constitute OR anyway. People cannot come into the category LBGT and it subs by people saying they are gay unless that is undisputed among historians. The issue is murky, at best we can say that many people say that he was probably gay. I suggest listify, this cateogory will end up deleted if the rules are relaxed on inclusion. Lobojo (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If we were to require that then no royalty could ever be in that category since it is always disputed by somebody. Also, could you please stop with your section breaks! --Law Lord (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there was a reason for that question. No one says he was straight.  No one.  Therefore there's no dispute - the closest anyone gets to saying he was straight (besides ignoring the subject) is to say "the issue is murky".  So all the sources we have say there is something, just not what. If no one says he's straight, how can we put him in the straight category - which is what we're doing if we leave off the LGBT cat. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think we should categorise anyone as gay/bisexual or straight: what a dreary world it would be if we were all stereotyped along those lines. But issues of sexuality in the Renaissance are a legitimate area of scholarship: so it is the article, not James, that is categorised as relevant to that field. qp10qp (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's messy and unseemly. If we have to scrutinise the life of a dead man just to put him in a box, how about when we come to living people? And like Qp10qp says, we shouldn't stereotype. Those terms were invented by WASPs anyway in order to categorise the rest of the world according to their own views.--Gazzster (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your point. But "we should'nt stereotype. . . goddam arrogant wasps" LOL!! It does not matter if nobody argues he was straight, though reading the compromise paragraph that seems unlikely. We dont need to put him in any sexuality related categorys. Catergories are not compulsory, they are there to link things. Make a list, and link it in at the bottom. The effect will be the same. The rules on categories are clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobojo (talk • contribs) 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

F****, you got me there! (lol) Touche! You got me there, but I just don't like it.--Gazzster (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I found James I because I was looking for royalty suspected of being less than completely straight. Certainly, in my view, it is quite reasonable to characterize James I as such and to thus have him in the Category:LGBT royalty category. Since the article clearly states his homosexual tendencies, the category seems very reasonable and that anybody would waste the time of so many people arguing otherwise is what might prove the greatest challenge to the Wikipedia concept. Not everyone's opinion has the same value ... --Law Lord (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:LGBT royalty SECTION BREAK VI
It's general guideline that unless something is proven not to be true, yet that same something has enough evidence to support that most likely it is true, it can be categorized appropriately. That is the case with James I. -- ALLSTAR  echo 08:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. --Law Lord (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The opposite is the case, I'm sorry. I gave you links above to the rules on this which are clear. Does anybody object to making a list and linking it in the see also as an altertive that is not problematic. Lobojo (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you stating that you think James I was probably bisexual or gay, and he was royalty, and you wouldn't mind him on a referenced list calling him a gay or bisexual royal, but not in a category calling him a gay or bisexual royal? Is that what this huge long discussion is about? There comes a point where dedication to a rule no longer makes sense.
 * I don't see why the category should be changed to say the *exact same thing* as a list for this flawed and incomplete rule we continue to argue about. If the majority of the people who make the category rules would not support changing them, and their majority is being respected, clearly the majority of the people who care about this article don't support putting James I into a list. Why respect one majority over another? I continue to be stunned at what motivation is so compelling to drag this conversation out so long. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that is what I am saying and that is the policy on wikipedia. Look at List of cults. You can annotation an nuance in a list, so you can have things that are not 100% in them, not in categories. The entire categorisation system for the LGBT wikiproject will be put at risk if you water down these rules. If you want to change the guidelines this is not the place for here. Here we enforce the guidelines not debate whether they are good enoguh. Listify is the only solution here that will avoid a mess, and danger to the entire wikiproject. Lobojo (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Listifying is *not* the solution. A list follows the same rules as a category - an article can't be put on "list of cults" unless there are reliable references.
 * I have repeatedly shown you that there are reliable references that say James was gay or bisexual. You have repeatedly failed to show references that argue that James was straight. I fail to see how you can still argue the article doesn't belong in the category? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer Lobojo's question, of course someone objects or we wouldn't be having this ridiculously long conversation about it, and that someone apparently isn't just me or a single person. -- ALLSTAR  echo 15:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Object to what? Lobojo (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Object to what?? You said, Does anybody object to making a list and linking it in the see also as an altertive that is not problematic. I said yes, people do. -- ALLSTAR  echo 16:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I object also. There is no consensus to deleting Category:LGBT Royalty. — Becksguy (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend dividing the category into three categories (or sub-categories). The three? Gay-Lesbian, Trans and Bi, and apply 'bi-sexual' category to James. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait - do you mean "Gay and lesbian royalty", "Bisexual royalty" and "Transgender and transsexual royalty"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant all biographies (royals & non-royals), however that could work for the royals. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend [Category:LGBT theories], because this is indeed promoted heavily by them, from what is show here at least. It would retain "LGBT" and discussion of sexuality, regardless of merit.  Even then, why not make a superimposed [Category:Sexual theories]?  24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you've said something that makes sense. It's worth considering, the LGBT theories part. -- ALLSTAR  echo 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lobojo wrote: "I gave you links above to the rules on this which are clear." I have not received any links from you ... (The rest I have removed per WP:CIV.) --Law Lord (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion
Please note that the consensus for this category is now "Articles about notable lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity, or whose sexual orientation or gender identity is known and not debated by historians." Everyone agrees that James does not fit this description, and hence, he no longer fits the category as currently defined. To include him, you would need to redefine the category. DrKiernan (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but not "everyone" agrees. There are more than a few editors that believe James I does fit the criteria for the LGBT royalty cat. Have you read the extensive previous discussions about that exact issue? And even very recently, there are several editors that disagree. — Becksguy (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the phrase "not debated by historians" was in the Category:LGBT royalty category for less than one hour on 29 December 2007. The description for Category:LGBT royalty currently reads: This category includes both monarchs and members of royal families who are shown by a verifiable, reliable source to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. There is nothing in the category, or category talk page that changes that. — Becksguy (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has said anything, I'm restoring the Category:LGBT royalty category per previous consensus. And, no, it is not a requirement that there be no debate among historians that he was homosexual, or had homoerotic attractions with his admirers, as previously discussed extensively. Here, reposted, are two reliable sources from several available that establish his sexuality: There are more references available on his sexuality, but two from well regarded university presses are sufficient for the category. — Becksguy (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Young, Michael B. (2000) King James and the History of Homosexuality. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0814796931. Young (a historian) says in his biography of James: "Our conclusions are of two sorts — those that pertain to James and those that pertain more generally to the history of homosexuality.  To begin with James: he did have sex with his male favorites, and it is nonsense to deny it." (Young, p 135).  From a review: "Professor Young pulls no such punches here. He very carefully traces the history of James' relationships, beginning with his earliest affairs in Scotland, in order to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that James I was actively involved in sexual relations with his young clients".
 * 2) Crompton, Louis. (2003) Homosexuality & Civilization. Boston: Belknap/Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674011977. Not only is this from one of the most respected university presses, it won an award sponsored by the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. Compton devotes a whole section on the the male partners of James I within the chapter on 16th & 17th century England. He said: "Amorous involvements with handsome male favorites were a recurring pattern in James's life." (Compton, p 382) Talking about the Duke of Lennox: "James was devastated by the loss of the man who had been his family, friend, lover, and mentor..." (Compton, p 384).

Side note...
The last part of the last sentence in the "Personal relationships" section says "his marriage to Anne of Denmark, with whom he fathered his children." The word "his" is redundant, but removing it sounds like both he and Anne were fathers. I'm having trouble copyediting that to make sense... Help? :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't mind that line being removed altogether since there's already a whole subsection previously about it at James I of England. That is, if we're still paying attention to balance/weight... --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  10:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, but can we follow the advice given here? Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

King of England or Scotland
James was King of Scotland prior to becoming King of England, and was King of Scotland much longer. Therefore he should be listed as James VI of Scotland rather than James I of England. This site demonstrates a definite pro-English bias at the expense of other nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.173.34 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. ShakespearesZombie (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that you are on EN.wikipedia.com - the english version, what's the problem? -- ALLSTAR <strong style="color:#FFF;background:#0F4D92;border:1px solid #000"> echo 20:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the genius pointing out this is EN wiki isn't educated enough to realize they speak English in Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.173.34 (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a good quesiton. What is the policy for this kind of thing? Lobojo (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think 'most common usage' is why this article is called James I of England instead of James VI of Scotland. One could argue for the title James VI of Scotland and I of England, but that might be a cumbersome title. Actually, all the Stuarts (from 1603-1702) could arguable have X of England and Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While he was king of Scotland for longer, his role as King of England was indisputably seen, both at the time and later, as far more important in the larger scheme of things than his role in Scotland. England was one of the more important kingdoms in Europe (probably only the Emperor and the Kings of France and Spain were of greater significance at the time), and Scotland was almost certainly by a considerably margin the least important, besides rump Navarre, which hardly counts.  Note the similar case of his contemporary Henry IV of France - King of Navarre for 17 years longer than he was King of France, but still listed under the French title. john k (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep it as England, as that was by far his more important kingdom. Most of his Scottish reign was actually taken up with preparing for the English succession and keeping Elizabeth happy, and as soon as she died he moved to London and never set foot in Scotland again. TharkunColl (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be added that there is no potential for confusion here. The article discusses this fact, and anyone looking for James VI of Scotland is automatically redirected to this article. Jeffpw (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He did set foot in Scotland again, actually: he paid at least one visit, which went badly because the English wouldn't send him any money to pay for the trip...Michael Sanders 21:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a non-issue. It's a case of politicising an issue unecessarily.--Gazzster (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as many encyclopedias & books use the title James I of England, we should use that title here. Using X of England and Scotland would be too cumbersome & besides we've got 'James VI and I' in the opening line. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also true, of course, that most encyclopedias and books list the English and British monarchs as a continuous list. TharkunColl (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced on that topic. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? It's pretty trivially verifiable.  One normally sees, for instance, that Queen Anne reigned 1702-1714. john k (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See List of English monarchs, as to why I oppose adding 'British monarchs' to that list. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a different question from whether most encyclopedias and books list the English and British monarchs as a continuous list. They certainly do. john k (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Regrettably true, most encyclopedias and books do (erroneously IMHO) list English and British monarchs as a continous list, while ignoring the Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's all that erroneous. De facto, if not de jure, the Union essentially meant the political (but not judicial) absorption of Scotland into England.  That's certainly how the Scots felt about it at the time.  The same can be said of the 1801 union.  The Westminster parliament was not replaced by a new one, but expanded to include Scotland, and so forth.  I don't think it's all that misleading to say that Anne was queen of England from 1702 to 1714. And it's certainly not very misleading to have a single list which notes the various changes of titulature in footnotes.  The main problem, in my view, is the awkwardness of titling such an article, and similar issues. john k (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we discuss this at List of English monarchs? Tharky is determined to add the British monarchs to that list. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, all this talk of "needless politicisation" makes me wonder.

Now, stop me if this doesn't make sense, and maybe this is a bit revolutionary, but couldn't we call the article by his name rather than his title, because while he had more than one title, he only had one name?

OK, so there were several men by the name of James Stewart in history, so maybe we'd need an additional identifier, like James Stewart (1566-1625), but although England was more important internationally than Scotland at the time, Scotland is still more important to Scottish people than English is. Ergo, the current title reflects the non-neutral POV of most of the world in favour to the non-neutral POV of the Scots.

The only other way to guarantee NPOV is to fork the article into one for Scotland and one for England -- which would just be silly. Prof Wrong (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, the priorities of 6 billion people should be considered equally worthy of attention as those of 5 million? That seems hard to justify.  Beyond that, he was never actually called "James Stewart", particularly.  He was "James VI" or "James I" (and, very briefly in infancy, "James, Duke of Rothesay").  And James Stewart (1566-1625) is just kind of silly - an elaborate attempt to avoid POV.  The obvious title, in any event, would be James VI and I, but our stupid royal naming conventions apparently make this impossible.  That being so, James I of England is the best option available. john k (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the majority is by definition neutral? That's not logical. Also, I'd refute the 6 billion. I'd say at most half a billion give a sh*t about the history of the UK/Britain/England/Scotland.
 * Prof Wrong (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that we have a policy of giving due weight to points of view based on their prominence. Beyond that, the basic fact is that calling him "James VI" is a provincial Scottish attitude.  "James I" is the ecumenical, European way to refer to him, because England was always a much more important kingdom than Scotland.  Even if half a billion people care about British history, at least 495 million of them do not live in Scotland, so that doesn't help your case very much.  What constantly irks me about this is that there is precisely nobody who thinks there's a problem with Philip III of Spain or Henry IV of France, even though these have exactly the same issues as James.  We have a consistent policy for dealing with people who were monarchs of multiple countries.  We follow that policy with James.  End of problem. john k (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can anyone tell us if Scottish people call him James VI or I (of course it would regularly pop up in conversation)?--Gazzster (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty normally for him to be "James VI and I" in Scottish discussions. john k (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think trivializing a whole country is extremely chauvinistic. A lot of the discussion here seems very POV towards England, and it seems like a lot of the talk of "politicization" is an attempt to silence valid criticism.  I think the most equitable solution is to move the page to "James VI of Scotland and I of England."  I don't think that's overly cumbersome, either.  Plenty of pages have long names to be fair, like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

James I of England is the most common usage, thus the article's name. Philip III of France and Henry IV of France are also most common usage titles. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Wouldnt a vote be a good idea here? --Camaeron (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No need for a "vote" as consensus clearly favors James I of England as the title of the article. -- SECisek (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The title is wrong as well, it should reflect the main agreement that he was James VI first. Let's get something straight. He's nearly always called James VI in Scotland, if not, then James VI and 1. If you go to Linthigow Palace, there is no mention of him being called by Historic Scotland (on the wall engraving) anything else as other than 'James VI'. It does come up in conversation, I've a friend whose sixth child was called James for that very reason. Ok, maybe I keep strange company, but there are a lot like me. With a new Scottish parliament, one cannot argue that Scotland has been absorbed into England. With the contribution to the British Empire the Scots made (and I won't bore you with the huge disproportionate list) and the Scottish Enlightment, we were not an unimportant country. Perhaps we were not wealthy in money but intellectual property we had in a vast amount. It doesn't need Napier to work out the logarithmic contribution the Scots made to the world. Supermack-mar08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.109.37 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * James VI and I seems a sensible suggestion - it was his title after all! Anyone else agree? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem with "James VI and I" - that's what the infobox says already. The trouble is that it would have to be "James VI of Scotland and I of England", which is unwieldy. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * James I of England is unsatisfactory, but I do not see any way round it. If we change the principle of most important title, it will reverberate through hundreds of other articles.The principle is not about the more important country but about the more important title: James nearly fell over himself to have the title of King of England. What he had his eyes on next was "King of Great Britain". Pity he didn't get his way, because it would have saved this page a lot of disputation. qp10qp (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Common usage calls for James I of England & like Ian said James VI of Scotland and I of England is way too cumbersome an article title. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive my ignorance, but is there any reason why the article can not be named "James VI and I" - I don't see any need for a country to be specified in the title and other articles - like "Canute the Great" - do not. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Manuel of Style calls for Monarch of country, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd put it another note here. His style, as noted in the article was "His Majesty, James VI, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.". Perhaps therefore, since he was known at the time as "James VI, King of..", the article should be known as "James VI of England", since his style is what determines the reginal number, not the location. He wasn't King James I, King of Ireland. He was James VI, King of Ireland, even though there were no previous Kings called James of that Kingdom. The obvious bias against the fact he was James VI of Scotland prior to also becoming King of England is evident in the comments here, but nonetheless, he was and is King James VI first, and according to the laws of the now United Kingdom, the reginal style takes it's numeral from the higher figure; hence Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, even though neither Scotland nor the United Kingdom have had a monarch of that name before. Although the Union of Parliaments that established that system was still a hundred years away, nonetheless, might we not take precedence from that and declare that he is James VI, King of England, Scotland France and Ireland, just as was done at the time. If, for brevity's sake shorten that, then "James VI" would be more correct, but failing that, "James VI of England, Scotland", or even just "James VI of England" is still correct. His style was James VI. No mention of James I was made. The title is quite clearly incorrect. The irrelevant bleatings of those who seem to have an pro-English anti-Scottish bias aside, there is no reason to not correct this mistake. That severa other articles will need cleanup is also irrelevant; right is right, and this title, as it stands is not. He was not styled as "James I King of England, Scotland" etc. It was"James VI King of England, Scotland" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizard Drongo (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think as this monarch represented the merger of the crowns, it is important to list both his titles in this specific case. The heading of James I of England makes the article more confusing. --Stephend01 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

First line
While I don't think the name shuold be changed to something more cumbersome, I think that the first line should give both his main roles clearly, so I changed it to James I of England, James VI of Scotland referred to as James VI and I (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was King of Scots, King of England and King of Ireland. What do people think of this change? Lobojo (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me explain to you how things work and what consensus means. Firstly, you don't make the changes first and then ask what other people think, like you did here. Secondly, if there's already a consensus then it's pointless think you can make changes against the consensus, like you did here again. You are really trashing an article that isn't at Featured Article status just for the hell of it. It's a Featured Article because it's pretty damn perfect the way it is. So don't go mucking about with it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- <strong style="color:#fff;background:#DC143C;border:1px solid #000">ALLSTAR <strong style="color:#FFF;background:#0F4D92;border:1px solid #000"> echo 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware or any consensus as to the wording of the first line - i didn't change the meaning at all, I just rearranged the words to make it clearer that this article was discussing a man who held both titles. Since when don't you make changes? I made a change and explained it here and asked what people thought about it. What is with the abuse? This IS how things work on wikiepdia, I am not aware of any explicit consensus that says "the wording of the article is perfect and cannot be changed", I am just at a loss here. I am going to re-post my above comments so people can respond to the suggestion I made, and let them criticize me if they don't like it. This is just bullying. You write You are really trashing an article that isn't at Featured Article status just for the hell of it. - I changed 3 words! Don't try an intimidate me from editing with you nasty personal attacks. I enjoy editing wikipedia, and I wont be put off by bullies. The only edits I have made to this page include removing a category that clearly cannot be used within current wikipedia content guidelines, and shift 3 words. This has repeatedly set you off in to apoplectic fits of nastiness. Lobojo (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

trying again
I am re posting this note to try to focus discussion on the change I made rather that on the personal attacks made against me.While I don't think the name should be changed to something more cumbersome, I think that the first line should give both his main roles clearly, so I changed it to James I of England, James VI of Scotland referred to as James VI and I (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was King of Scots, King of England and King of Ireland. What do people think of this change? Lobojo (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the opening the way it is (simple). Your version is too cumbersome. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your feedback. I just think it needs to say James I of England, James VI of Scotland othewise you risk minimizing the Scots part. Lobojo (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The old version, as now reverted to by allstar, is better. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This article was significantly degraded before qp10qp stepped in and restored the quality so it would not be at risk or WP:FAR. To arbitrarily make changes without actually gaining consensus is simply the wrong way to go about things. Lobojo, perhaps you want to read through the talk page completely before trying for more changes here; and perhaps, too, you might want to actually form a consensus for the change before you implement things. Jeffpw (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the present version. The titleit w should remain, because that's how he's most commonly known. And the first lines explains his two reigns in chronology order, which lists Scotland first. Nicely done.--Gazzster (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep it the way it is. --Law Lord (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Agreed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.109.37 (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the current version is inaccurate, misleading, and extremely rascist. To suggest that James VI should, and is only known by the title James I of England is really quite english nationalistic jingoism, and reading the comments in this talk page it is obvious that the majority are aware of this and find delight in it. The guy was scottish, King of Scots, who by accident of birth happened to inherit the crown of a small neighbouring country. Had that country been Ireland, Wales, Afghanistan or India I dont think we woud be seeing this discussion. It seems the 'little englanders' (and there seem to be a hell of a lot of them on wikipedia) are trying to hide the fact that he was, and remained, James VI of Scots. If we take as an example Carlos V Holy Roman Emperor, his page makes it quite clear where he was first king of and where he came from, whereas the commentary on this page appears to suggest that he should magically appear, fully formed, on his ascencion to the english throne. I'm sure Aragones and Castillian people would like that page to be called 'Carlos V of Aragon' or 'Carlos V of Castille'. However in his case before he was Holy Roman Emperor and king of half the european countries he was just 'Carlos'. This is not the case with James VI. And yeah I know there is a wikipedia convention, but it appears to be in a shambles wrt kings of scots. They man's name was James Stewart, James VI of Scotland, that should be the name of the article. The rest is part of the article. You can link James I of England to it, or even have your own wee article about when he was in england, fine by me. 193.153.22.222 (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a question of being little Englanders but of following the convention. We all know that he should be known as James VI and I, or variants of that with kingdoms, but there is no provision for such a format on Wikipedia. The reason is that Wikipedia cannot make an exception for James: if this article's title were to change, many other article titles would have to change too. The article makes it immediately clear that James was king of Scotland first, and I believe the article gives a full and fair account of his reign in Scotland. However, he regarded the English throne as a bigger deal than the Scottish one and only returned to Scotland once after 1603. If he had had his way, he would have changed his title to "James of Great Britain", overriding his Scottish title. He signed documents either as King of Great Britain or placed England before Scotland ("James, by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland"). qp10qp (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Daemonologie
The link to Daemonologie leads to Demonology. This doesn't seem appropriate. I don't know much about this, but I assume the book was on this topic. However, it seems like it would be more appropriate to link to an article about the book. I'd like to propose one of two options: somebody who knows about this stuff can create a stub article for the book and link to that, or remove the link. BlearySpecs (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I unlinked it a while ago...--Camaeron (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the document --> http://www.brysons.net/teaching/csun/daemonologie.html i'll look round for some secondary sources about it. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do people here think this book should be added to the list of external links? <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  06:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, certainly, if there's not a simpler file at Gutenberg. qp10qp (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No already been to Gutenberg. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  13:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Epilepsy
I have a vague memory that James I was an epilepsy sufferer. Can anybody confirm whether there is any substance to this notion? Thank you --Lil Miss Picky (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing various accretions
James's "Royal Coat" image removed from the "Regencies" section.

Removed this intrusive template. It doesn't actually show the House of Stuart: and relevant details of the House of Stuart are already included in the infobox, in the article text, and in the boxes at the foot of the article.

Removed the stuff below. Apart from the duplicated shield, I've never seen anything like it in any history books or scholarly articles on James; besides which, it is not sourced. If someone wishes to see this material on Wikipedia, they should in my view dedicate a special article to it, devoted to heraldry. Either that or find a way of including elements of it where appropriate in the form of prose, not notes, and with scholarly references.



Titles and styles

 * 19 June 1566 – 24 July 1567: Prince James
 * 19 June 1566 – 24 July 1567: The Duke of Rothesay (Earl of Carrick, Lord Renfrew)
 * 10 February – 24 July 1567: The Duke of Albany (Earl of Ross, Lord Ardmannoch)
 * 24 July 1567 – 27 March 1625: His Grace James VI, King of Scots
 * 24 March 1603 – 27 March 1625: His Majesty King James I of England

As King of England and Scots, James's full style was His Majesty, James VI, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Prior to his ascension in Scotland, his full style was Prince James Stuart, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Albany, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Ross, Lord Renfrew, Lord Ardmannoch, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland

I've also removed the following gallery.

And I've removed this: ''Of James's great-great-grandparents, seven were Scottish, four were English (though the same two people), three were French, one Danish and one Dutch. This can be taken as a rough indication of his background.''

I present the material here for appraisal. It might appear that my reasons are simply a matter of taste; and it's true that I do not like to see all this agglomeration interfering with a clean and logical article design. But, more importantly, the people who have added this material have not sourced it. This is a featured article, and the featured principle is that everything should be fully referenced. I see no reason why some of the portraits in the gallery should not be added to the article; but no need for a whole gallery in a history article. May I point out out that a separate article exists for dynastic material and supplementary images: Descendants of James I of England. Too much incidental stuff has accumulated in the infobox too, which I also propose should be cut down. qp10qp (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following laboriously titled section that was added after the section on James's accession. This material is concisely mentioned earlier; in this depth, it should become a new article, in my opinion; but I would point out that such over-quoting is not good encyclopedic style, for which summary is the appropriate mode. qp10qp (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(Start of removed section)===James's perspective of Elizabeth I of England and Mary, Queen of Scots===

The succession of James as King of England continues to pose some ironies. Elizabeth I, who consented to the succession before her death, had also refused to intervene when James's mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, was beheaded for treason. James's perspective can be seen in a letter which he wrote to Elizabeth I, which states:

What thing, madame, can greatlier touch me in honour that is a king and a son than that my nearest neighbor, being in straitest friendship with me, shall rigorously put to death a free sovereign prince and my natural mother, alike in estate and sex to her that so uses her, albeit subject (I grant) to a harder fortune, and touching her nearly in proximity of blood? What law of God can permit that justice shall strike upon them whom He has appointed supreme dispensators of the same under Him, whom He hath called gods and therefore subjected to the censure of none in earth, whose anointing by God cannot be defiled by man,. . . Honour were it to you to spare when it is least looked for; honour were it to you...to take me and all other princes in Europe eternally beholden unto you in granting this my so reasonable request, and not (appardon, I pray you, my free speaking) to put princes to straits of honour wherethrough your general reputation and the universal (almost) misliking of you may dangerously peril both in honor and utility your person and estate.

Elizabeth referred to Mary's execution as a "miserable accident." In another letter, Elizabeth reassured James of her positive intentions towards him, writing, "For your part, think you have not in the world a more loving kinswoman nor a more dear friend than myself, nor any that will watch more carefully to preserve you and your estate".

In another letter, James responded to Elizabeth:

Madame and dearest sister, Whereas by your letter. . . ye purge yourself of your unhappy fact,. . . together with your many and solemn attestations of your innocency -- I dare not wrong you so far as not to judge honourably of your unspotted part therein; so on the other side, I wish that your honourable behavior in all times hereafter may fully persuade the whole world of the same. And as for my part I look that ye will give me at this time such a full satisfaction in all respects as shall be a mean to strengthen and unite this isle, establish and maintain the true religion, and oblige me to be as of before I was, your most loving. . ."

Some might question James's sincerity, but regardless of his true thoughts on Elizabeth, he became the undisputed monarch of both England and Scotland. In 1612, James had his mother's body exhumed from its original place of burial at Peterborough Cathedral and reinterred at Westminster Abbey.(End of removed section)

JAMES VI
Although a Scottish Republican, the name of this article MUST be JAMES VI not James I. James I he is, but not first. He was primarily JAMES VI. If disputed he should be James I of GB not of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernsehturmaufzug (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the title should be James VI and I. This is the convention used by professional historians, etc. It reflects the order of succession to the Scottish and English/British thrones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladdabister (talk • contribs) 11:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On the first point, the rules on naming individuals' articles on Wikipedia (here) are clear that we must go with what is most well-known, rather than "most correct". See also our article on Queen Jane, at "Lady Jane Grey" (her most commonly-known name).
 * On the second of the two points, he was not King of GB (that Kingdom didn't exist until 1707, well after his reign). It is not Wikipedia's place to invent a designation that was not valid.
 * James F. (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * James did call himself "King of Great Britain", but Robert Cecil told him it would be unconstitutional of him to legislate as such, and he never did. I agree with Jdforrester that article titles do not always follow usage. Where a monarch has more than one crown, the major one is used for the title. James himself thought the crown of England the major one of the two. qp10qp (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * His entire (adult) reign in Scotland was devoted to keeping Elizabeth friendly so that he could secure the English throne, and once he had it he moved to London and only set foot in Scotland once, I believe, for the rest of his life. England was the vastly more important, wealthier and more powerful of the two countries, and in the early 17th century was well on the way to becoming a European great power. As for his title, that was, and is, a matter of royal perogative. Although the English parliament rejected union with Scotland, James called himself King of Great Britain from 1604 onwards. Look on the title page of any King James Bible and it's right there. <small style="color:#006200;">ðarkun

Offensive anti scottish bigot. He was scottish not english. This is just england trying to the fact a scot took over england. Loads of British people who ran India lived there for a long time it did not make them Indian. He was scottish and ran England. Calling him James the first, above james of Scotland ia arrogant and offensive and it  a pile of rubbish. He was king of scotland first. You English canot take that so try and hide the facts.

I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but really this article should be James VI and I, not James I of England. While England was more powerful, that is no reason to ignore the fact that this was a Scottish king, referred to in official sources and by modern historians as James VI and I of Scotland and England. I would ask most strongly that the editors see their way to retitling this article. Some of the reasons given for not changing it seem almost racist or at the very least merely ignorant and inconsiderate. The size of Scotland means nothing. A Scottish king inherited the English crown. There is no reason to place his English title more highly than his original (and continuing) Scottish one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.134.71 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

All scholarly references that I had to study referred to him as James VI and I. If more people know him as James I (through anglo-centric history books perhaps) then redirect from James I to James VI and I, it would be more accurate and a lot less offensive. Even leaving aside political nationalism, James VI and I is more accurate. Strattera (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood. But the challenge is to be able to step back from your Scottish-centred position to see the wider picture, where the issue of standardised Wikipedia article titles comes into play. Wikipedia articles follow the convention of using one title—the most important—for the page name. There are some exceptions: so to make your case you have to prove that this king should be an exception in having two kingdoms in the article title. qp10qp (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved
Whilst not so splenic as some of the above, I find it intolerable that the "wisest fool" who 'kent weel' the prize of England and enjoyed her riches but never lost his Scots 'tung', is referred to by his later acquisition. Exempli gratia Victoria of the United Kingdom, secondarily known as the Empress of India. An Empress is certainly senior to a mere Queen, and this one certainly didn't speak Hindoostani as her first language. Double standards......?Brendandh
 * Great, can we move it back now? Cheeers. Artw (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot
Why isn't the Gunpowder plot mentioned in the article? While doing research on King James on of the assignments was his relation to the gunpowder plot which is somehow not mentioned here at all. Please add this to the article --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has a section on it, a summary of the main article on the topic. See the table of contents. qp10qp (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

King James as Founding Monarch of America
Here is a quote from a web page that I found on the internet which asserts that King James I was the founding Monarch of America. I want to edit the original article. However, I want this same assertion to be fully discussed such that said posting and correction is both correct and appropriate.

"King James is the founding Monarch of the United States. Under his reign, we have the first successful colonies planted on the American mainland--Virginia, Massachsetts and Nova Scotia. King James ordered, wrote and authorized this Evangelistic Grant Charter to settle the Colony of Virginia: "To make habitation...and to deduce a colony of sundry of our people into that part of America, commonly called Virginia...in propogating of Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness...to bring a settled and quiet government."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.208.99 (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New images
I've recently uploaded several new images of James I. Although this article already has many images, I hope some of them may be helpful. Dcoetzee 11:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Writerly" monarch
Footnote 7 is a quotation, which goes:
 * "James VI and I was the most writerly of British monarchs. He produced original poetry, as well as translation and a treatise on poetics; works on witchcraft and tobacco; meditations and commentaries on the Scriptures; a manual on kingship; works of political theory; and, of course, speeches to parliament...He was the patron of Shakespeare, Jonson, Donne, and the translators of the "Authorized version" of the Bible, surely the greatest concentration of literary talent ever to enjoy royal sponsorship in England."

Why are we directly quoting such a large amount of text, when we could make most of the same points by paraphrasing? When we do paraphrase it, can we ensure we don't refer to him as a "writerly" monarch (ugh!)? What's wrong with saying he wrote more than any other monarch and was also the patron of many writers, then name them. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it can be bettered. But then I would, because I provided it. You have the whole range of his literary involvement here. I think "writerly" is perfect, though it would not work out of quotations. qp10qp (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as a writer, I think it's just about the worst possible way of referring to a person's literary activities or involvements. To me, "writerly" sounds like it's written by someone for whom English is not their native language.  Seriously.  I'd much rather have us say "James VI and I wrote more, and was the patron of more other writers, than any other British monarch".  Or something like that.  Anything but "writerly". --  JackofOz (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The word has an extra nuance that your paraphrase misses. It doesn't just mean that he was a monarch who wrote but that he conceived of himself as a monarch through his writings. It seems to me the mot juste for James. qp10qp (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please move
not moved. No consensus for move. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

James I of England → James VI and I &mdash; The current title is incomplete and possibly misleading. He should be quoted with his proper titles. Certainly his title of James VI of Scotland was both the first and longest of his regnal titles. Some of the editors are using spurious reasoning by trying to subjectively analyse James VI and I to discern his feelings on his Scottish title. This seems flawed in an encyclopaedia. Factually he was James VI and I, whatever James or anyone else believe(d). 81.99.134.71 (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree - for the many reasons adduced multiple times in sections above by various proponents on both sides, this article is best to stay titled as it is with the redirect from the alternate title. Scots and English nationalism are all very well, but in the end those of us who live outside either area need to be able to find him in the most logical place, which is James I. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. See the discussion at WP:NCNT; this example is why we try for simple titles. The proposer's line of reasoning terminates in James VI of Scotland and I of Ireland and England - and even then some Channel Islander will complain that it omits the Duchy of Normandy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this page can be moved by voting, and for that reason I'm not going to vote, as such. Yes, of course, "James VI and I", is sensible, on the face of it, because that's what historians tend to call him. But the issue on Wikipedia is consistency. We'd have to include the realms, which are Scotland, England, and Ireland, giving us a page title that few would recognise. We'd also have to add them for the next six monarchs, something most historians don't do in their book titles. And the ramifications wouldn't stop there, because we'd then have to apply the principle to the pages of many other monarchs who ruled more than one state. qp10qp (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "James VI and I" is a terrible title for an article, and historians are welcome to it. It may well be that the article needs to be moved to a new title, but that's not it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is a perennial issue for this article since the first talk page in 2003, and second only to his sexuality. Here are most, if not all, of the threads on this subject. Although a few are short threads, many are thoughtful discussions on the issue. I have to agree with QP, and many of the previous arguments, that this title is the most appropriate Wikipedia title. Per WP:NCNT, it's the more common reference to him and the most consistent. James I is even listed as an example there. I have a lot of sympathy with those that argue for Scottish inclusion, but then we would have to include all of his titles, including that of Ireland, to read, at a bare minimum, "James VI of Scotland and James I of England and Ireland". And don't forget France. And whatever else. And change all the styles and titles of many other monarchs as well. And yes, I know he was King James IV longer than James I, but arguably he was more important as James I of England (not Great Britain, which actually didn't exist as a Kingdom until 1707, despite his sometime usage). See: Jacobean era as an indication of that importance. In addition, as James I, he ordered and commissioned the English translation into what was arguably the most famous, important, and influential English Bible for some 300 years. That Bible, the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 was named after him.  So, yes, James I as a title is incomplete, but I believe it's actually less misleading, and works best here.
 * 1) Talk:James I of England/Archive 1
 * 2) Talk:James I of England/Archive 1
 * 3) Talk:James I of England/Archive 1
 * 4) Talk:James I of England/Archive 1
 * 5) Talk:James I of England/Archive 2
 * 6) Talk:James I of England/Archive 2
 * 7) Talk:James I of England/Archive 3
 * 8) Talk:James I of England/Archive 3
 * 9) Talk:James I of England
 * 10) Talk:James I of England
 * — Becksguy (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong support The other users forget that James never ruled France, and had extremely limited control of Ireland limited to little more than the Pale. Moreover, James ruled Scotland solely from the deposition of Mary Stuart to the death of Elizabeth I. A wide number of academic sources use the "VI and I" formulation. This does not mean that later monarchs should have their numbering changed, but James VI and I is a special case. Could other users explain what is so "terrible" about the "VI and I" formulation? YeshuaDavid (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Indeed YeshuaDavid. There is something up with the opposition to what is generally accepted nominclature of this monarch.  I hesitate to suggest it is anti-Scottish, but it sure looks that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.134.71 (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2009 UTC


 * Support James IV of Scotland and I of England or James I of Great Britain 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Two people in this discussion have now called him James IV instead of James VI, perhaps highlighting the unmemorability of the proposed title.  James II of England would, by the way,  have to be clumsily renamed—to James VII of Scotland and II of England and Ireland, one mother and father of a tricky and obscure formulation. To the commenter above who said that the Scottish crown could be added without adding the Irish one, the point is that Henry VIII retitled himself from "Lord of Ireland" to "King of Ireland". qp10qp (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - OMG, and I'm one of them, QP, good point. Note that James VI and I, James I of Great Britain, and King James VI of Scotland are redirects to this article, so readers will find him. The Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist until the Acts of Union in 1707. Since James died in 1625, it was kinda hard for him to have been "James I of Great Britain", although he did apparently sometimes style himself so. Also, I really don't see those that support the "James I of England" title are being anti-Scottish, at least not intentionally. England was considered the major crown of the three, and supporting the current article title seems to be more about common usage, using the major crown only, and opposing long unwieldy or tricky article titles. As was pointed out in one of the early archived threads: "Wikipedia naming policy requires that where a monarch wears multiple crown, the major one only is used in the article title. Otherwise we get impossible to use titles." (Jtdirl as FearÉIREANN, 2003) — Becksguy (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Great Britain because it's the Island... since Wales was already ruled by England. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also a good point. The unqualified Great Britain is an ambiguous term, as seen in the article and the DAB page Great Britain (disambiguation). — Becksguy (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article title did include VI at one point, and we did indeed have editors complaining that it was discriminating against the Irish. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment or it's a simple transposition typo, which are very common. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. I would rather support a move to James VI of Scotland, if you could prove that he is best known as such. If we move this article, the Spanish will want to move Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor to Charles I of Spain because he reigned as King of Spain longer than he reigned as Holy Roman Emperor, without considering the fact that he is best known as Charles V. If historians tend to call him James I more often than James VI or James VI and I, why should Wikipedia call him the way we think is "fair"? Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not on "commonsense" or "fairness". Surtsicna (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think what many users are forgetting is James VI and I ruled Scotland for about 40 years before becoming King of England - which he did comparatively late in his life. As such, this article has to be treated seperately from articles like James II of England (where one kingdom was dominant) due to his strong Scottish connections - he was, of course, the "Scottish King". They also ignore that Wikipedia's naming guidlines are second in importance to accepted scholarly usage - Wikipedia should of course reflect established convention, not build it. With regard to Surtsicna and his comments, James is known predominantly by both regnal numbers, not simply by his Scottish title. I am also not Scottish (I live in London), but if users do want to move Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor to Charles I of Spain, they are fully entitled to use the democratic processes on Wikipedia to request that move.<font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 20:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeshua David: I removed the bolded text "Reiterate strong support" from the head of your comment. The nature of this discussion is the everyone gets one oppotunity to !vote with a bolded remark, so a repeated one, even with the modifier "reiterate" could be misleading. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment James (1566-1625) was 37 when he became James I in 1603, and he had been James VI of Scotland for 36 years (1567-1603). However, all but 19 of those years was as a child or teenager and much of that was under a regent. So he was James VI in name for 36 years before 1603, but only in real power starting at age 15 for 22 years (1581-1603). He was both James I of England and James VI of Scotland for 22 years (1603-1625), about the same amount of time he had real power in Scotland before wearing both crowns. So using length of rule really doesn't apply in determining which of his titles is more important. I believe it is clear that he is better known for his rule as James I, and for continuing the Elizabethan period of cultural flowering into the Jacobean literary, cultural, artistic and scientific era which was named after him. He did more as James I than as James VI. Despite ethnic and national pride issues, England was considered the more important crown. And that, in addition to Wikipedia naming conventions which really control here, is why the title of this article should stay as it is. — Becksguy (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I realise he was King of Scotland and without a regent for about 22 years, and King of England for slightly longer - I wouldn't support a move to James VI, but while England was the more powerful throne, he was identified as "Scottish" by most English coutiers, and more culturally Scottish than English. But the common name for the monarch is "James VI and I", and we should try to reflect that. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose as a ridiculous and confusing title that would set precedent for a wave of equally unreasonable moves. Also strikes me as motivated by Scottish patriotism, he is best known as James I. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm English, and while the IP adress who suggested the move may be Scottish, I'm sure they have good intentions. As I said, this should not be seen as a precedent. Could you substanciate your claim he is best known as James I? Also, it's hardly a "ridiculous" suggestion, VI and I is quite well established. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 17:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt anyone's good intentions but good intentions can be wrong in terms of points argued; we are required to use common name which the proposed ame clearly fails to do and he is better known as James I because England was far and away the more powerful nation. He's best known for his Bible, and as James I. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Squeak, do you mean to say something other than: He's best known for his Bible, and as James VI. It seems inconsistent with your opposition. — Becksguy (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, a typo, and thanks. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support rename though I'd prefer James VI of Scotland, I of England, or James VI of Scotland and I of England. I don't really buy the argument that if we rename this article in a way which many people agree is sensible, we would then be obliged to rename other articles in a way which nobody would think sensible. WP:NCNT "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception."--MoreThings (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your suggestions require monarch articles to be named on an individual basis rather than in consistency with each other. But encyclopedias have to have a system, and they tend to go for the James I name (see Britannica and others). I disagree with the suggestion by YeshuaDavid and others that "James I" is not the most common designation for this king: it may not be in Scotland or in appropriately fastidious history books, but in the world at large, I should think James is generally known as James I. qp10qp (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that my suggestions require anything at all regarding other articles. I explicitly disclaimed the idea that a decision made here be cited in favour of renaming other articles. The guideline at WP:NCNT encourages editors to make ad hoc exceptions where appropriate and I feel an exception here might be appropriate. I'm not saying that it's clear cut. Your Britannica example is a good one; YeshuaDavid cites examples of academic usage; some popular historians use the longer version: a b c. My 2p is that we're a general encyclopedia with a worldwide readership, and the more descriptive (and perhaps better known) title would best serve our readers. --MoreThings (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of popular use of James VI and I, it's not all highbrow academia. Take this BBC profile for example, or the Royal Family website. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I would support a move, but not the one proposed. Deb (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No reason to break with a longstanding convention AFAICT. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 20:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 Evidence for move : Examples of academic usage of "VI and I" formulation:


 * James V and I: Selected Writings (Ashgate Publishing);
 * James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge University Press);
 * James VI and I: Ideas, Authority, and Government (Ashgate Publishing)
 * (Longman)
 * The reign of James VI and I (Macmillan)
 * The Cradle King: the Life of James VI & I, the First Monarch of a United Great Britain (St. Martin's Press)
 * Theatre and Empire: Great Britain on the London Stage under James VI and I (Manchester University Press)
 * Kingship and Crown Finance Under James VI and I, 1603-1625 (Royal Historical Society) <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 20:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * YeshuaDavid, the usage you illustrate is very well known, I assure you. But this is a specific issue for Wikipedia, where consistency among hundreds and maybe thousands of pages has to be taken into consideration. It's not a single-page decision. qp10qp (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What he said. — Becksguy (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I know this does fall under WP:NCNT and I realise consistancy is important for Wikipedia, and that moving this page could create an awkward precedent. But James VI and I is a special case - he is always much more identified with Scotland than England, and Wikipedia's conventions state we should use the most commonly identified titles, which is not always the larger and wealthier country. I would oppose, for example, the move of James II of England to "James VII and II" for the reason that the later Jacobean king is much more identified with England and the Glorious Revolution. I respect Wikipedia's naming conventions, but James VI and I is almost always identified with the joint titles of England and Scotland, and the page name should reflect this. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 16:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  he is always much more identified with Scotland than England, Not my experience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As being Scottish, not neccessarily for his reign in Scotland. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 20:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is relevant. George I is much more identified as being German, and William III as being Dutch, but that doesn't affect that their most important reigns were in England/Britain. john k (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The form "James VI and I" is used, and does have significant currency. However there must have been quite a lot written about him, so it could be difficult to establish the most common usage.  Most English histories just call him "James I" and Scottish histories tend to call him "James VI".  To override naming conventions you would have to show that a non-standard form is overwhelmingly the most common.  I question whether he is much more identified with Scotland than England, some of the most important events associated with his life took place in his capacity of King of England e.g. Gunpowder Plot, King James Bible.  After he inherited the English crown he rushed down south and only ever made one return visit. PatGallacher (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If James VI and I was a cognomen, then I would see the need for overwhelming single usage of that form for the move to take place; however, given that it is not, it is a perfectly legitimate name for that monarch. I agree that James' English reign is significant (although his Scotttish reign would be important - his relations with Elizabeth I, Robert Cecil, his mother Mary Stuart et al), but not enough for that to ignore the most common name. Even this page's intro starts by using "James VI and I". <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 11:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The intro has the flexibility to explain the titles, which the page name, without becoming long-winded (or obscure), cannot. qp10qp (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can hardly say "James VI and I" is long-winded, given that it has less characters than "James I of England". And as I've said before, there's quite a lot of popular usage of the "VI and I" formulation. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 16:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Except in the context of the history of Scotland, the presetn title should be used. England (with Wales and Ireland) is a much larger area than Scotland.  That James regarded the English crown as the more important to him is indicated by his having lived in England from the time he inherited the English crown.  In a Scottish context, the use of VI can be done by piping or using a form that is redirected to the present article title.  A similar problem arises in relation to people who were notable before they were peers or before they inherited.  The practice (though with exceptions) is for the article to have the subject's final title, but for articles referring to him to use his contemporary name or courtesy title for the time referred to.  "James VI and I" would not be acceptable alone, because the suffix "of (kingdom)" is always added.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the above evidence as to usage of "James VI and I", without any suffix, as the most common title for the monarch. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 21:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm kind of ambivalent about this. I've long thought the naming conventions for monarchs are stupid and result in bad article titles - as I've said before, I think, I much prefer the German wikipedia's way of doing things, which would generally involve disambiguating parenthetically when necessary.  I find James VI and I to be a more aesthetically satisfying title, but this is only because I dislike all the current monarch name forms.  I don't think there's any call for James VI of Scotland and I of England, or whatever, or for preferring James VI of Scotland over James I of England.  England was indisputedly the more important kingdom (as evidenced by the fact that James moved to London in 1603 and, iirc, never returned.  England was one of the most important states in western Europe at the time, and Scotland was an impoverished, sparsely populated backwater.  I might add that we use Charles XV of Sweden, not Charles XV of Sweden and IV of Norway, and Charles III of Spain rather than Charles III of Spain, VII of Naples, and IV of Sicily.  James VI and I is better than these because it's actually used, but I find no compelling argument, other than the general problems with monarchical naming more broadly, in calling the current name unacceptable. john k (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He went back to Scotland once. I agree with you: my opposition to the change is based on Wikipedia convention not on any invalidity in the title "James VI and I". But different publishers have different conventions, which often chafe, and I think of Wikipedia as a publisher, whose conventions also chafe. qp10qp (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

 Evidence against move :


 * 718 Google Book Results for "James I and VI"
 * 726 Google Book Results for "James VI and I"
 * 1,537 Google Book Results for "James VI of Scotland"
 * 1,750 Google Book Results for "James I of England" Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: (Is comment needed?) Basically, this "invented" form (James I of England) is more common than the proposed form (James VI and I). Common name is in favour of the current title. Surtsicna (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose We certainly shouldnt move this article to the suggested title. I think this should be named James VI of Scotland rather than [James I of England]], but sadly that isnt going to be supported here. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Your request will be supported if you provide good arguements and sources. If you base your request on "fairness" and "equality" (as it happened several times already), it will surely be rejected. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure this raw data from google books makes for a strong consencus to keep - the first link for "James I of England" google book search actually gets a volume called " Anne of Denmark: Wife of James VI of Scotland, James I of England‎". If the comments by Surtsicna are aimed at myself, I would point out that in no way I am basing this request on a sense of "fairness" or "equality" - the raw book data is a weak claim for dominant usage of "James I of England" as the primary subject of this monarch (irregardless of the positions of both kingdoms, where England was undeniably more powerful). As I have shown above, the the Royal Family website, the BBC and the overwheling academic concensus usae "James VI and I". <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment My comment is obviously aimed at BritishWatcher. Please read what he said and the read what I said ;) Anyway, the first link does say "Anne of Denmark: Wife of James VI of Scotland, James I of England‎". That's why it is included in both Google Book Results for "James VI of Scotland" and Google Book Results for "James I of England". The books which mention him as "James VI of Scotland" and "James I of England" simultaneously are included in both lists, so your comment doesn't really prove anything. The important thing is: "James I of England" is mentioned in 1,750 books, while "James VI and I" is mentioned in 718 books. The difference is obvious and siginifacnt. Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, should have checked :-p I still think the important thing though isn't just the pure number comparison. Also, that isn't the book title in many of the books in the list - looking over it again, quite a few say something on the lines of "James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603", stuff like that. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, we've only 2 choices for naming this article (James VI of Scotland or James I of England). Common-usage, calls for the latter title. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three choices in the above and "James VI and I", although very few editors are calling for it to be moved to "James VI of Scotland". Please do not feel that "James VI and I" is a contrived combination of his English and Scottish titles; as I have tried to stress, it is a highly used formulation for this monarch. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But, as I have tried to stress, it is not nearly as used as the current title is. The current formulation is used by 1,700 books, while the proposed formulation is used by 700 books. Why should we replace the most common formulation? Surtsicna (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * James VI and I is appropiately mentioned in the opening content. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My counter-argument must be that a simple number comparison is misleading - any book which uses "James VI and I" is inevitably going to talk about his titles within the course of the book; the reverse is less likely to be the case. It also ignores what I would call the definitive sources - such as the BBC, such as the Royal family, such as notable historians. A google search using both terms comparatively also finds far more hits for James I of England - but looking more closely, a large number are about the England keeper David James. With response to GoodDay, his point strengthens the case to move the page, not weaken it, as the common name. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that every book which uses "James VI and I" also mentions him as "James I of England"? I don't think you can. Why do you think that your definitive sources - a broadcaster and a website so credible that it says that only the monarch's eldest son can be Prince of Wales (thus ignoring the existance of a king) - are superior to the much larger number of scholars? Surtsicna (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I've no problem with changing this & the other articles to James VI of Scotland and I of England, Charles I of England and Scotland, Charles II of England and Scotland, Mary II of England and Scotland, William III of England and II of Scotland. But, such article titles, would be too long. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The length, and the fact that your proposal has extremely limited usage, is why I suggest it should be "James VI and I" - "James I of England" is preferable to such an uncommon and wieldy name. "James VI and I" ndoes not have an advantage because it is "equal" with regard to Scotland and England, but because it is the most used form, for reasons listed above. Also note "James VI and I" is shorter than the current title. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the Popes, monarchs must have their (at least) one of their countries mentioned in the article title. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is rather begging the question, isn't it? That is certainly the current convention.  There has been considerable discussion (with considerable support) of the idea that it should not be so.  Is anything gained by having Louis XIV of France vs. Louis XIV?  To go back to YeshuaDavid's argument about "authoritative sources", I'd mention among others the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography uses "James VI and I".  To go back to the article about the most common name, we are arguing among a bunch of names none of which is the most common name.  The most common name is quite obviously simply James I.  There are some other kings named James I - in Scotland, obviously, but also in Aragon, in Sicily, and in Cyprus.  But James I is obviously by far the most written about of these, and in most circumstances when someone says "James I", he is meant.  The title James I is obviously unavailable, which means that none of these titles is the "most common name" in the normal sense.  James I of England is a disambiguated version of that most common name, James I.  James VI and I is a somewhat less commonly used form, which happens to be used a lot in more recent academic sources.  There are arguments for both, but none of it is what the "most common" form is. john k (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not saying anything is "superior" to anything else, merely establish popular usage. And while it's not directly relevent, how do you respond to Wikipedia's usage of "Diana, Princess of Wales"? 2. I'm sure most books will use "James I" and "James I of England" interchangably. 3. The official website of the British Monarchy doesn't say the UK was formed in 1603 anyway, and its use of "United Kingdom Monarchs" is presumably analogous to "British monarchs". Template:British monarchs, which I and other editors have been developing, considers James and his successors to have been British monarchs. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 16:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment After five days at Requested moves, it seems clear to me that there is no consensus to change the article title. Thirteen editors oppose, four support. I don't see that much will change even if we spend additional time discussing this. I suggest that the move request template be removed as very unlikely to succeed, and that this thread be closed. Otherwise we will be beating a dead horse. — Becksguy (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not trying to attain the popular vote of editors; polling is not a substitute for discussion. The decision of whether or not to move should be made on the balance of the arguments made, with consideration to evidence produced by both sides. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 20:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To respond to your above comment Surtsicna – I fail to see what points you are trying to make. Of course I can't personaly verify that any text with a title incorporating the "James VI and I" formulation refers to him by his individual titles, but it seems a perflectly sensible and reasonable assertion, given that they would naturally talk about both his reign in Scotland, and his reign in England. The BBC is a highly respected public organisation, hardly any broadcaster, and the official website for the royal family (http://www.royal.gov.uk/) can hardly be discounted as the definitive website for the monarchy (discussions about the Prince of Wales title being irrelevent, frankly). And as I've extensively argued, pure number figures are deceptive - see my above example of googling for "James I of England". <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also failed to see what point you are trying to make by claiming that a broadcaster (no matter how respected) is superior to over 1,000 scholars (not all of whom are reliable, surely, but among 1,700 people you are likely to find more than one reliable historian). I have not started a discussion about the Prince of Wales title; it just proves how "reliable" and "credible" the website is. I also don't see how you can compare a Google search and a Google Book Search. Instead of trying to find more sources, you stick to two sources and a couple of those listed above, while you're undermining 1,700 books and a Wikipedia policy. That doesn't sound convincing. Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, how exactly am I undermining 1,700 different people? Not only am I citing two highly reputable souces, in addition to a large selection of specific academic histories (while you are just quoting numbers at me), and we establish the common names by more subtle techniques than simply the search engine test, which can prove distortive, although I admit it can sometimes be useful. The BBC is a highly reputable souce, which has a major reseaerch unit, BBC Research. Also, "google search" and "google book search" are quite easily comparable search engine tools, both produced by Google. I'm sorry if that "doesn't sound convincing" to you. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are asking me to find the best among the 1,700 scholars and cite their names here? ... Anyway, I am not the only one who is not convinced that "James VI and I" is the right title. You are right: polling is not a substitute for discussion. However, you are supposed to use the evidence to convince majority that "James VI and I" is the right title. So far, you haven't convinced anyone and the majority still believes that the most common unambiguous name - James I of England - should be used as the article title. Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I see your opposition, but James VI and I is not an ambiguous name for this subject. It is well respected and used by reliable sources. You haven't produced any qualatative reasoning why these 1,700 writers constitute solid evidence against the proposed move, or answered my criticism that the google search test is in this case misleading, given that any book on the king would use both titles. I can't comment on how many editors I have personally persuaded (I am not the nominator, and other editors have expressed support following my comments), but if you believe this move is contentious (I don't, see the lede of this article), provide some qualatative opposition against the move. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 13:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is well respected and used by reliable sources. - So is the current title. You haven't produced any qualatative reasoning why these 1,700 writers constitute solid evidence against the proposed move - I've repeated the qualitative reasoning multiple times. ...any book on the king would use both titles - That's precisely the point. While every book would mention him as "James I of England", not every book would mention him as "James VI and I". Therefore, "James I of England" is used more often and is used by equally respected and notable scholars. ...and other editors have expressed support following my comments - They presented their own reasoning for supporting the move, while you've failed to convince anyone who opposed the move. ...provide some qualatative opposition against the move - I see my reasoning more qualitative than yours, and apparently, so do 13 other users. Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they would use the James I of England title; that was his crown in England. I suggest that it is not the common name, given that the BBC, historians, the Royal Family and others use "James VI and I". By both titles I meant "James VI" and "James I". <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You suggest that James I of England is not his most common unambiguous name, despite all the evidence that it is? As to credibility of your sources: 1) BBC is so credible that it refers to Diana Spencer as Princess Diana. 2) The historians you mention are minority and they also refer to him as James I of England. 3) The official website of the royal family claims that the United Kingdom was formed in 1603. That's how reliable your sources are. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The BBC is an extremely well respected organisation, and prominant to the extent that it has its own wikiproject. Diana is popularly known as Princess Diana, and her article, Diana, Princess of Wales, reflects that. 2) As I've tried to make clear, you are mirepresenting historical opinion, as most volumes (such as the ones I have mentioned) will use James VI and I, but will still refer to him as James I when talking about his later English rule, although there are no doubt numerous exceptions. 3) The United Kingdom's history to a large extent does date from 1603, as from that point both kingdons became a dual monarchy. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 15:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) No matter how respected or prominent it is, the BBC is not superior to a scholar. It is not correct to refer to Diana as Princess Diana and if BBC uses popular names instead of correct names, it's not a reliable source for determining the best name for this article. 2) While all books which mention "James VI and I" (with quotation marks) will mention "James I" (with quotation marks), not all of them will mention "James I of England" (with quotation marks). I've been trying to explain how Google operators work, albeit unsuccessfully. 3) The United Kingdom was not formed until 1801. It wouldn't be incorrect to refer to the "united kingdoms", but referring to a single state in a period when there were two states in undisuptably incorrect. The sources you mention are simply unreliable. Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Calling her "Diana, Princess of Wales" is perfectly correct. 2) Again, you do not understand how quotation marks function as Google operators. 3) its use of "United Kingdom Monarchs" is presumably analogous to "British monarchs" - I can presume a lot too. For example, I can presume that whoever edits the official website doesn't know that the UK was formed in 1801. Neither you nor me can know what the author meant. We can, however, read what what's written. It clearly says "United Kingdom Monarchs (1603 - present)". Surtsicna (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Fine, but the BBC is still a repected organisation. 2) No I don't, but can you clarify the point. 3) Of course, but it is far more logical to hold the view that "United Kingdom Monarchs" is being used to cover the entire period when England and Scotland (as independent states and as part of Britain) have the same monarch, rather than come to the conclusion that the contributor thinks the UK was formed prematurely. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) BBC is undisputably a respected organization, but it's not an authority when it comes to determining what title should be used for a Wikipedia article, as BBC is not an encyclopaedia or a scholarly organization - otherwise we would have an article named Princess Diana. 2) When you search for "James I of England", you will get only books which use the exact phrase. When you search for James I of England (no quotation marks) you will get all books which meantion the words James, of, England, and the letter I. So, all books which mention "James VI and I" as a phrase might not mention "James I of England" as a phrase. The phrase "James I of England" is more common than the phrase "James VI and I". 3) It may be far more logical to you, but to me referring to two seperate states as the United Kingdom is far from logical. In fact, it's anachronistic. Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It demonstrates popular usage as much as anything. Wikipedia should use the common name and the technical name. 2) Fine, but the books I have cited use James VI and I as part of their title. They also seem much more credible, since you have not cited one single individual work. 3) I do not support any anachronism; however, I percieve it to be the most logical explanation. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 14:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Individual works which refer to him as James I of England: Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * King James I of England, by Antonia Fraser
 * James I of England: the wisest fool in Christendom, by Hardy Steeholm
 * Anne of Denmark: Wife of James VI of Scotland, James I of England, by Ethel Carleton Williams
 * New poems by James I of England, from a hitherto unpublished manuscript (Add. 24195) in the British museum, by James Allan Ferguson Westcott
 * James I of England, by Caroline Bingham


 * Point taken in that respect. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the argument needs labouring any more. Both titles for the page would be valid. The decider is Wikipedia policy, in my opinion. The dilemma exists in the world of scholarship also. For example, Pauline Croft calls her (very good) biography "King James", which I suspect is her way of dodging around the issue. qp10qp (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said three days ago, it's time to close this discussion. We aren't really doing much more than reiterating our respective positions, although it's been a pleasure discussing this in a nice civil and congenial way, and I've learned much. I don't disagree that there is support for James I and James VI in various permutations (and a bit for James VI of Scotland). But as QP says, Wikipedia naming conventions really should control in these cases, especially when the reliable sources are inconsistent. So I believe consensus is fairly clear on the side of keeping the article title as it is. This discussion has been ongoing for eight days, longer than an AfD or RfA. Please, lets move on to something else. Therefore I'm asking an uninvolved admin to close this discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Becksguy, although I've been supporting it, there's clearly no concensus to move. <font color="Navy">YeshuaD avid  • <font color="Green">Talk  • 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro
As we have to keep this awful title because of silly Wikipedia naming conventions, would it be possible to point out more clearly in the introduction that he was Scottish? By having "Of England" in the title rightly or wrongly, we are confusing some people into thinking he is from England. It doest even say where he was born in the infobox.. Why is that? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me clear enough in the lead that he was King of Scotland before he became King of England. The article, very early on, says that he was born in Edinburgh. (So anyone who wants to find out where he was born will not have to read far into the article.) I believe this article gives a fair proportion of attention to his reign in Scotland. qp10qp (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact he was first King of Scotland, doesnt change the fact the intro should point out he was Scottish or atleast say he was born in Scotland in the intro. It should certainly say where he was born in the info box. The introduction doesnt clearly state he was Scottish, considering the stupid article title, it seems reasonable to make sure that we point out hes really "Of Scotland", not "of England". BritishWatcher (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it you think the wording needs improving, do it. I'm not in favour of infoboxes, myself. qp10qp (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the opening sentence, back to James VI & I. It's a fair compromise, considering the article title. Also, James was King of Scotland, longer then King of England & Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Title
As mentioned in the above discussion. James was King of Scotland before & longer then King of England & Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Year of succession
From the article On 24 March 1603, as James I, he succeeded the last Tudor monarch of England and Ireland, Elizabeth I, who died without issue. Which year does this actually mean? Specifically, what was the second day of his reign? Was it 25 March 1603 or 25 March 1604?

Until 1752 in England and Wales, years conventionally ran from 25 March to 24 March; in Scotland it had changed to the modern convention of 1 Jan to 31 Dec during 1600. See Old Style and New Style dates. This means that the year of his accession to the English throne would have been written differently in contemporary English and Scottish records. I'm assuming that the year of his succession, 1603, is a New Style date, but if someone can confirm this, it would be good to put some form of explanatory footnote. —ras52 (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't need a note, in my opinion, because few people seem interested in the matter. I've just checked the three main biographies on which the article was based (Croft, Stewart, Willson) and none provide such a note. If there were such a note, it would say only that all the dates in the sources were adjusted to the present system, which in my opinion would add nothing to the article. qp10qp (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you confirming, then, that the year of his accession was 1603[NS], and not 1603[OS]? —ras52 (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm reluctant to use the terms OS and NS, which for a simple encyclopedia article like this are distracting. The sources used give the date of James's accession as 24 March 1603. That should be good enough for us as well. qp10qp (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting article should use the term OS or NS. All I'm trying to find out was when his accession was.  Was it in 1603/4 or 1602/3?  Was it 405¼ or 406¼ years ago?  As it stands, the article does not tell me, and, although I suspect the answer is 1602/3, i.e. 406¼ years ago, I do not know.  Can you clarify, at least on the talk page if not in the article itself, which is correct. —ras52 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have to count back from the present year in twelve month periods that last from 1 January to 31 December until you get to 1603. The accession was on 24 March of that year. qp10qp (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, yes. But you still haven't answered the basic question.  Which year was it in?  1603[NS] or 1603[OS]?  —ras52 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying. James I became King of England & Ireland on March 24, 1603 (Julian Calender). You want to know what would've been the date of his accession under the Gregorian Calender (today's Calender). GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain what the accession date would've been under the Gregorian Calender. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not really to do with the Gregorian versus Julian Calendar. In England (and most of the English-speaking world excluding Scotland) two changes happened in 1752.  First we changed from using the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar, and as a result we lost 11 days in September (2 Sept was followed by 14 Sept).  The second change was that we changed from Old Style years to New Style years.  The result was that 1752 only had 271 days.  In Scotland only the first of these changes happened in 1752: the second change had already happened in 1600.  James VI & I acceded the English throne on the last day of the year, English-style, and part way through the year Scottish-style.  To a contemporary Scotsman, 24 Mar 1603 was exactly a year earlier than it would be to a contemporary Englishman.  In other words, if an Englishman and a Scotsman agreed to meet on 24 Mar 1603, the Scotsman would arrive a year before the Englishman.  Now I strongly suspect, though am not certain, that James VI & I acceded the English throne in the year that the Scots would have called 1603 and that the English would have called 1602.  This year is variously written 1603[NS], 1602[OS] and 1602/3 when one wants to make it clear exactly which year is intended.  Personally, I think that one footnote on the first ambiguous date in the article is the appropriate way of marking it in this article stating whether new or old style dates are in use.  However, I'm hoping that (irrespective of whether a footnote is considered useful) someone can clarify here on this talk page whether the dates are new or old style.  So far no-one has.  —ras52 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The dates are adjusted dates, per the sources. The days and months are the same, and the year is taken to begin on January I. In the case of James's succession, therefore, since the beginning of the year is backdated from 25 March to 1 January, the year is taken to be 1603 and not 1602. But you know this already. I oppose a footnote because the whole point of using the standardised system is to save the readers worrying about something they do not need to worry about. qp10qp (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally answering the question. An no, I didn't know that already; had I known, I wouldn't have had to have asked repeatedly.  As to a footnote, I quite agree that a standardised system is good, but unless we tell readers what that system is, how can they know what it is?  A footnote is hardly going to worry readers unduly.  Let's face it, most readers don't read footnotes unless they particularly want clarification on the sentence in question.  —ras52 (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary, in my opinion. And if this were adopted on Wikipedia, hundreds of other articles would need a similar note. The point of the rounding down of the years is to supersede the old systems. Only in particular cases, where a letter that mentions specific dates is being quoted, for example, is a note needed. Many other irregularities are conventionally standardised in writing history, such as those in spellings, orthography, punctuation, and terminology. If we had to write notes about such routine standardisation every five minutes, we'd never even be able to use terms like protestant, catholic, princess, council, etc., without statutory quibbling.qp10qp (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The convention among British historians is to quote dates with the year starting on 1 January (because people today do not know about the year starting on 25 March). "NS" and "OS" are widely misused terms. They do not refer to the year start (or did not at the time), but were a measn of bridging the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. This is only relevant to diplomatic correspondence and foreign trade, between people writing letters between countries using different systems of dates. Hecne a letter might be dated 1/12 March or 28 February/10 March. I take this from the "instructions to authors" stylesheet of various journals to whcih I have contributed. Some historians will quote the date as 1602/3, but the better practice is to correct the date to modern form. Personally I will sometimes use this form in drafting academic articles, with a view to deleting "2/" at a later stage. I have no doubt there is something on this in the WP styleinstructions. In any event, 24 March 1602/3 was the date of Elizabeth's death, and of James' proclamation. Some one took the message to James with remarkable speed, but even so it took some days, and must have taken some days more for James to arrive in England and actually take up rule. I was always taught that Henry VIII died in 1547, but it was in fact January 1546/7. Examples might be multiplied. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A good example is the execution of Charles I on 30 January 1648/9. The guideline for what to do in Wikipedia articles is found in Manual of Style (dates and numbers) "The dating method used in a Wikipedia article should follow that used by reliable secondary sources. If the reliable secondary sources disagree, choose the most common used by reliable secondary sources and note the usage in a footnote. ... 1 January is assumed to be the opening date for years; if there is reason to use another start-date, this should be stated." --PBS (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

King James on smoking?
Just wondering if he has said: "A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and the black stinking fume thereof ..." .

This is credited to James Charles Stuart of 1604. Does this mean that the worldmapper.com has forgotten to title him as a King, or is this some different bloke who was called James Charles Stuart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.69.144 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)